Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 164459 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.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#80624 Mar 13, 2013
Wow wrote:
<quoted text>
You say it's a lie. You say it's folklore. You know they taught Pluto to be a planet until 5 or 6 years ago. Science is not without flaw. They discredit theories and things known to be "facts" often. Fact is science does not offer proof without question the "how"
Evolution you say? Why one species to evolve to that with the intelligence of the human level yet no other species? No other species can homogenize milk, build a cell phone, transplant a heart, create devices like pacemakers, bypass machines etc. Apes still throw their own feces yet we are "evolved" they aren't? Ridiculousness
For a claimed physician you donít know much about scientific advancement and basic animal behaviour.

The of tools adopted by some animals, the ability to lie and cheat adopted by animals such as pigs, apes and some birds, problem solving/reasoning of apes, dolphins and whales and that far surpassed human reasoning, the ability of most all mammals, avians and fish to learn.

Tell me, could humans build a cell phone, transplant a heart, create pacemakers 50 years ago?

You are attributing technology to goddidit by godmagic.

Honey, I know of humans that have thrown there faeces and smeared it on walls and doors. Is that evolved behaviour?

Where did blue eyes come from? godmagic or genetic mutation (evolution)

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#80625 Mar 13, 2013
hatuey wrote:
<quoted text>wood head learn, yoga is not only for flexibility,yoga is also for meditation, pranayama and other things hard for you to understand because of the 57 ticks
Really? I thought yoga was for sex.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#80626 Mar 13, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever Dude. You are a bloody liar and a c unt. lol
Have the balls to admit you were throwing racial slurs or you are a liar.
Wow Cybele, I had somewhat respected your posts since you seemed to be educated, but this one totally blows your credibility out the window. No need to try to be hurtful, you obviously read into Dude's post incorrectly. There were no slurs in his post, it actually was very accurate and intellegent. Your retort was nothing more that stone throwing, and should be reported.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#80627 Mar 13, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
http://www.intelligentdesignth eory.info/creation_vs_evolutio n.htm
"37 Facts of Creation vs. 30 False Theories of Evolution
Teaching Creation vs. Evolution
Both evolution and Intelligent Design Theory should be taught in school. In the creation vs. evolution debate facts for kids, natural selection and survival of the fittest are real and has caused you to believe that life is an accident. This has caused considerable conflict and turmoil in your life that was not of your conscious actions. If evolution is your belief, it is an integral part of your thoughts and your demeanour. Unfortunately, you are not living in harmony with love, peace, joy and a life of comfort or your own existence. Turmoil and conflict just flow into your life and you may wonder,'why me'? The problem is that much of the theory of evolution is unbelievable. Evolution vs. creationism is the cause of the unsolicited turmoil in your life. So you have my sympathy and my warm regards. After two hundred years of Darwinism, in creation vs. evolution many unbelievable beliefs about evolution have evolved.
Belief in evolution results in a subconscious feeling of futility and despair because it is in total conflict with humans' and and other creatures' desire to live and their constant battle to survive. Belief in evolution causes one to wonder if he or she will cease to exist or will suffer torture eternally in hell. Belief in creation results in a conscious feeling of comfort, joy and peace, causing one to know that he or she will live forever, free of pain, discord and suffering."
You need to stop getting your science from Dr. Seuss.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#80628 Mar 13, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
There is absolutely no evidence that Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection proves change of species.
Correct. The proof that species change is in the fossil record. Natural selection is *how* they change.
That aliens created billions of species on earth is not credible. What then, created the aliens?
Huh?
Whales did not evolve from dogs.
True. Nobody says they did.
Human ears did not evolve from fish gills, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
Nobody says they did.
Human lungs did not evolve from fish gills, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
Nobody says they did. In fact, they evolved from the swim bladder.
There is absolutely no evolution evidence that life is an accident.
Loaded language: accident implies and intention.
Evolution does not explain life, consciousness, intelligence or thoughts.
No. Evolution explains how species change over geological time.
Because of this, modern Charles Darwin's theory of evolution evidence is not entirely credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
Wrong. We can show that species change over geological time. We can measure how fast they change and how those changes relate to their environment.
Nuclear decay of Radioactive isotopes has some serious flaws in the dating process.
Uniform decay of radioisotopes has been disproved by Creation Science.
Not in any way relevant to radioactive dating.
The Big Bang is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
On the contrary, the Big bang theory: that the universe has expanded from a very hot, dense condition *has* been tested and measured.
That electrons and protons came from nowhere is difficult to believe, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
Well, electro-positron pairs *do* from from a vacuum and that can be measured and understood.
Black holes are not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
Actually, yes they can. In fact, they *have* been observed, tested and measured.
Time dilation is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
On the contrary, time dilation *has* been tested, observed, and measured.
Einstein warping of space and space contraction are not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
On the contrary, it *has* been tested, observed, and measured.
The existence of negative mirror universes is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured
A proposal, but not something seriously considered at this point.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80629 Mar 13, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow Cybele, I had somewhat respected your posts since you seemed to be educated, but this one totally blows your credibility out the window. No need to try to be hurtful, you obviously read into Dude's post incorrectly. There were no slurs in his post, it actually was very accurate and intellegent. Your retort was nothing more that stone throwing, and should be reported.
Appreciate the candor, but I don't worry much about what names fundies call me on the interwebz. She's welcome to do it some more if she likes.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#80630 Mar 13, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
Your twin brother travelling at the speed of light and aging less is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured..
On the contrary, the relativistic effects on time have been tested, observed, and measured. This is a common thing at particle accelerators.
That particles pop in and out of the universe at random is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
On the contrary, it *has* been tested, observed, and measured. See the Casimir effect.
Stars travelling faster than the speed of light as a result of the Big Bang or any other reason is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
Nobody claims this.
The distance between galaxies at the limits of the universe is the same as they are everywhere. Therefore, the universe may not be expanding
Wrong. it definitely *is* expanding and has been expanding for the last 13 billion years or so.
Red shift of light due to velocity and not gas and dust in space is not credible.
The differences are easily detectable. The red shift is due to motion.
That the speed of light is a constant is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
On the contrary, it has been tested, observed, and measured. We even know that the speed of light 160,000 years ago was the same as it is now.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
Actually, it *has* been tested, observed, and measured. It is one of the main reasons for the size of atoms.
Quantum tunnelling is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
Except that it *has* been tested, observed, and measured. Ever hear of a scanning, tunneling microscope?
The theory of relativity is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
Both special and general relativity *have* been tested, observed, and measured over the course of the last century in numerous experiments.
Antimatter as a result of black holes is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
Well, anti-matter is not typically a result of black holes. But we do tested, observe, and measure anti-matter in particle accelerators. We have even made atoms of anti-hydrogen.
Photons are not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
On the contrary, they *have* been tested, observed, and measured. This goes back to Einstein and the photo-electric effect.

Wow. Your website is wrong on essentially everything it said. Many of the things it claims cannot be tested, observed, and measured have *actually* been tested, observed, and measured. So, in other words, that website is simply lying.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80631 Mar 13, 2013
superwilly wrote:
of course you don't know the deference between a soul and a sole...that goes without saying.
Yup. One's great R+B. One's a fish.
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
I said THE NAZIS ridiculed the jews every chance they got, not you!
Then stop whining then!(shrug)

:-/

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#80632 Mar 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. The proof that species change is in the fossil record. Natural selection is *how* they change.
<quoted text>
Huh?
<quoted text>
True. Nobody says they did.
<quoted text>
Nobody says they did.
<quoted text>
Nobody says they did. In fact, they evolved from the swim bladder.
<quoted text>
Loaded language: accident implies and intention.
<quoted text>
No. Evolution explains how species change over geological time.
<quoted text>
Wrong. We can show that species change over geological time. We can measure how fast they change and how those changes relate to their environment.
<quoted text>
Not in any way relevant to radioactive dating.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, the Big bang theory: that the universe has expanded from a very hot, dense condition *has* been tested and measured.
<quoted text>
Well, electro-positron pairs *do* from from a vacuum and that can be measured and understood.
<quoted text>
Actually, yes they can. In fact, they *have* been observed, tested and measured.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, time dilation *has* been tested, observed, and measured.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, it *has* been tested, observed, and measured.
<quoted text>
A proposal, but not something seriously considered at this point.
Kudos Poly, I thought about answering, but it just wasn't worth the effort.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#80633 Mar 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingo.
<quoted text>
Possibly. I'd rather defer to Polymath though. Wish he were here.
<quoted text>
Agreed.
There are several competing theories on this one. it is quite possible that gravity is an aspect of the multi-verse and that nearby 'universes' interact via gravity, even if the other forces are limited to the 'brane' of our universe. This is a fairly common prediction of string theory. The difficulty, as always, is figuring out a way to unambiguously detect such effects.

Another possibility posits a symmetry between the types of particles in our universe and another collection of particles with essentially the same properties, but where the other collection and ours interact only via gravity. This was more popular about 25 years ago when the E8xE8 theories were in favor. In this view, there would be a sort of 'mirror universe' with properties very similar to ours: galaxies, stars, etc, but that primarily interacts with our universe via gravity. The hope would be that the mirror particles would show up in our accelerators. This has even been proposed as an explanation for dark matter.

So, the possibility of other universes interacting with our only via gravity has been around for a while. How to test and verify this is the biggie.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#80634 Mar 13, 2013
Wow wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm betting you had issues as a child in the play yard not getting along with others. So we've established you put your faith or lack there of in science and that you know how to use google. Apart from that I can't really see any logic, just hatred for believers alike. Sad. Good luck with your endeavors in life and God bless ;)
Don't forget prejudice on the part of chat forums and such who engage in deliberate censorship that has nothing to do with their rules.

TOPIX rigs their forums. This is nothing but staged propaganda.
beau tat

Athens, GA

#80635 Mar 13, 2013
Just read the sumarian tablet texts. they are way older than the infamous bible that has been devastated by the hand of man.(ex. King Constitine) Please wake up. WHY CAN'T WE ALL BE SOBER.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80636 Mar 13, 2013
Tinka wrote:
They took Pluto and placed him in a different group does anyone know why?
Because it's basically a big comet...

the big question is what did that do to the astrologers? and how come they didn't see it coming? how come they never talk about hte planetoid furhter out from Pluto? surely it's effects on human should be felt...

almost leads one to think astrology is a sham!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80637 Mar 13, 2013
Tinka wrote:
They took Pluto and placed him in a different group does anyone know why?
To be serious, as woodtick pointed out it is just a big comet.

Recent discoveries of other similar bodies meant the end of a nine planet solar system no matter what. At least Eris was larger than Pluto and it had many patterns that were not "planetary'. So astronomers looked at the definition of a planet and improved upon the definition. They tightened up the demands on what it takes to be a planet and Pluto did not make the cut.

If they did not do this in ten or twenty years we would have a solar system with perhaps hundreds of planets. There are still quite a few large object in our solar system and as telescopes and technology improve we will find more and more of them.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80638 Mar 13, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
To be serious, as woodtick pointed out it is just a big comet.
Recent discoveries of other similar bodies meant the end of a nine planet solar system no matter what. At least Eris was larger than Pluto and it had many patterns that were not "planetary'. So astronomers looked at the definition of a planet and improved upon the definition. They tightened up the demands on what it takes to be a planet and Pluto did not make the cut.
If they did not do this in ten or twenty years we would have a solar system with perhaps hundreds of planets. There are still quite a few large object in our solar system and as telescopes and technology improve we will find more and more of them.
At one time we did have many planets. almost twenty or so, wasn't it?

the larger of the asteroids were classified as plantets.( but then Ms. Pac Man ate them, i beleive...)

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#80639 Mar 13, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
To be serious, as woodtick pointed out it is just a big comet.
Recent discoveries of other similar bodies meant the end of a nine planet solar system no matter what. At least Eris was larger than Pluto and it had many patterns that were not "planetary'. So astronomers looked at the definition of a planet and improved upon the definition. They tightened up the demands on what it takes to be a planet and Pluto did not make the cut.
If they did not do this in ten or twenty years we would have a solar system with perhaps hundreds of planets. There are still quite a few large object in our solar system and as telescopes and technology improve we will find more and more of them.
Cruithne - moon or asteroid?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#80640 Mar 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Appreciate the candor, but I don't worry much about what names fundies call me on the interwebz. She's welcome to do it some more if she likes.
Aww you are charming as well

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#80641 Mar 13, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>Wow Cybele, I had somewhat respected your posts since you seemed to be educated, but this one totally blows your credibility out the window. No need to try to be hurtful, you obviously read into Dude's post incorrectly. There were no slurs in his post, it actually was very accurate and intellegent. Your retort was nothing more that stone throwing, and should be reported.
Report what? You dork

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80642 Mar 13, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Cruithne - moon or asteroid?
Asteroid, but very very cool!

Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3753_Cruithne

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#80643 Mar 13, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Asteroid, but very very cool!
Thank you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3753_Cruithne
Cool indeed

http://www.astro.uwo.ca/~wiegert/3753/3753.ht...

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
Impossible brand and product combinations (Jan '12) 4 min wichita-rick 557
letter H 4 min Mr_FX 35
Poll Things that drive you crazy (Jan '10) 5 min SLY WEST 4,601
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) 10 min wichita-rick 1,847
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 14 min wichita-rick 163,083
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 25 min Grace Nerissa_ 663
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 30 min whatimeisit 79,180
News New and Totally Bizarre Baby Names 2 hr Spotted Girl 9
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 2 hr Crazy Jae 31,997
More from around the web