Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209504 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.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#81274 Mar 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Yup. not one shred of evidence of a global flood. nada. zilch, cero.
we have world wide evidence of a 7 mile wide rock hitting Earth 65 MILLION years ago. not one ipta of evidence for a global flood in the past 500,000years.
it never happened.
Actually, its been at the very least, 20,000,000 years or longer since even a large percentage of the earth was covered in water.

There was an ice age back there somewhere, but I don't think that counts.

Speaking of ice ages....the last one ended about 8,000 BC and it has been calculated that as much as 200+ vertical feet of water was given back to the oceans as a result of this melting. I wonder what our ancient relatives thought about it.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#81275 Mar 16, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
98.6
That's all you've got.
I've been in CERN and Fermilab.
they do need people to wipe the crap off the toilet seats also...

but from past experience, i would call bullshit,as you lie so often and poorly it is comical.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#81276 Mar 16, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
A fossilized human skull was found in coal that was sold in Germany (mid-1800s). A jawbone of a child was found in coal in Tuscany (1958). Two giant human molars were found in Montana (1926). A human leg was found by a West Virginia coal miner. It had changed into coal.�pp. 34-35.
A woman, in Illinois, reportedly found a gold chain in a chunk of coal which broke open (1891). A small steel cube was found in a block of coal in Austria (1885). An iron pot was found in coal in Oklahoma (1912). A woman found a child's spoon in coal (1937).�p. 35.
In 1944 Newton Anderson claimed to have found this bell inside a lump of coal that was mined near his house in West Virginia. When Newton dropped the lump it broke, revealing a bell encased inside.
What is a brass bell with an iron clapper doing in coal that is supposed to be hundreds of
millions of years old? According to Norm Scharbough's book Ammunition (which includes a compilation of many such "coal anecdotes") the bell was extensively analyzed at the University of Oklahoma and it was found to contain an unusual mixture of metals, different from any modern usage. Photo and text from Genesis Park.
Man-made objects in rock.
An iron nail was found in a Cretaceous block from the Mesozoic era (mid-1800s). A gold thread was found in stone in England (1844). An iron nail was found in quartz in California (1851). A silver vessel was found in solid rock in Massachusetts (1851).
The mold of a metal screw was found in a chunk of feldspar (1851). An intricately carved and inlaid metal bowl was found in solid rock (1852). An iron nail was found in rock in a Peruvian mine by Spanish conquistadores (1572).�pp. 35-36.
http://s8int.com/page8.html
I just went and looked some of that lot up.

The only available references seem to be from creationist or Art Bell-level sensationalist sources.

Oh, and Scharbough may not actually exist.

Get a grip, willya?
ThenNow WhatwillBe

New York, NY

#81277 Mar 16, 2013
I've been blown off by a bunch of self proclaimed intellects who mock God. lol
...Biblical? hmm

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#81278 Mar 16, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all, try learning English.
ROFL.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#81279 Mar 16, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
No you can't
Well that sucks....

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#81280 Mar 16, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
98.6
That's all you've got.
I've been in CERN and Fermilab.
Suuure you have.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#81281 Mar 16, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
But there is you just close your eyes to if. That's cool we don't need everyone in heaven.
But we don't close our eyes...we have real experts who look at creationists confabulations occasionally and tell the truth about it.

Do you think we just make stuff up like you guys do??

No, no, no my friend...we have people, people who actually know science and practice it every day.

There is NO conspiracy here. Scientists are just a bunch of geeks who are prone to tell the truth about their findings.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81282 Mar 16, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have their names. Rather a big mistake they need to be called out on it.
Nope, it is obvious even today that they were right.

There is no evidence for a World wide flood. No time in the past billion years has the whole surface of the Earth been covered with water.

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#81283 Mar 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, it is obvious even today that they were right.
There is no evidence for a World wide flood. No time in the past billion years has the whole surface of the Earth been covered with water.
Came pretty close with the "ice age"!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81284 Mar 16, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Came pretty close with the "ice age"!
Nope, even that was only northern part of North America, Asia and Europe. And of course Antarctica. For example most of the U.S. has never been glaciated.
Mark

United States

#81285 Mar 16, 2013
I have noticed that the comments are now avioding "Dark Matter" and going to new territory like the flood or even backwards to personal attacks. My foulup in the wrong accel lab folks, thanks for your correction, not sure how that make me a liar - doesnt change the real science facts that are testable and repeatable, nor the comments, quotes and paraphase's I made that are perfectly correct, the God Particle...NO dark matter found..perplexing, concerning..

Now its flood geology we seem to be treking to, my fav subject.

Its always been easy to determine continental flood current flow which occured as the flood waters ran off the earth, just take a look at the horseshoe mesa's from the air.. I call them "remnant topology". I had a very prominate geology PHd reasearcher on-board my 206 once and he quite agreed when i suggested this term as we flew over one near Medford, Oregon. He then bumbled and corrected himself because his indoctination finally overcame his observation. What was he thinking!! He later called me and we had a nice discussion but the sight caused him no small alarm. He offered no solution to the formation of the structure. Geologic structures often make alot of sense when interpreted from a catastrophic perspective. This includes ice age erosion, post-flood weather patterns and chain reaction natural dam breakouts. The Missoula flood hypothosis of a galloping seasonal glacier was mocked for 90 years by establishment geo's is a prime example of an eposide that reorganised the surface of Ore and Wa. and formed the eastern WA scablands and willamette valley sediments after 100 years + of cycles. All wrong in the text books of the day that had to be changed. Post Flood catastrophic events like this and the quick erosion of the Grand Canyon fit well in the dynamic environment of a post-flood world, and give uniformists terrible headaches to explain. I have a slide of the great conformity in the Grand Canyon that itself alone caused the conversion of a prominate mining geologist who later, useing the flood model, went out and made one of the largest gold discoveries in the last decade.

M

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81286 Mar 16, 2013
Mark you are a complete idiot.

The evidence against a worldwide flood is almost endless. There is no evidence for it.

Here are two words that send creatards running when it comes to the Grand Canyon:

Incised Meanders.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#81287 Mar 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>sorry, i gave you the credit of being able to think.
if the half life of carbon 14 is 5,730 years, it could not be used to date something 520 million years old.
i guess third grade math is beyond you. i will not make the same mistake again...
No dummy, I am a not a scientist and never claimed that I actually know. But you claim to have evidence and I asked for it but you come up with some bullshit. You still have NOT provided the mathematical formula. You have no clue how scientists really did it so stop pretending you know. If you give me the formula, I am willing to calculate it myself. So do you have it or not?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#81288 Mar 17, 2013
Is this the math that you think you can understand, Woodtick? Since you think your math is better than mine...

So, if you had a fossil that had 10 percent carbon-14 compared to a living sample, then that fossil would be:

t =[ ln (0.10)/(-0.693)] x 5,700 years

t =[(-2.303)/(-0.693)] x 5,700 years

t =[ 3.323 ] x 5,700 years
t = 18,940 years old

Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).

The use of various radioisotopes allows the dating of biological and geological samples with a high degree of accuracy. However, radioisotope dating may not work so well in the future. Anything that dies after the 1940s, when Nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors and open-air nuclear tests started changing things, will be harder to date precisely.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmenta...

So is it Potassium-40? Why couldn't you simply give the answer?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81289 Mar 17, 2013
Cybele wrote:
Is this the math that you think you can understand, Woodtick? Since you think your math is better than mine...
So, if you had a fossil that had 10 percent carbon-14 compared to a living sample, then that fossil would be:
t =[ ln (0.10)/(-0.693)] x 5,700 years
t =[(-2.303)/(-0.693)] x 5,700 years
t =[ 3.323 ] x 5,700 years
t = 18,940 years old
Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).
The use of various radioisotopes allows the dating of biological and geological samples with a high degree of accuracy. However, radioisotope dating may not work so well in the future. Anything that dies after the 1940s, when Nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors and open-air nuclear tests started changing things, will be harder to date precisely.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmenta...
So is it Potassium-40? Why couldn't you simply give the answer?
Cybele, radiometric dating is usually not used for fossils. It is usually used in igneous rocks. The clock is "set" when the crystals of the rock form. There are plenty of volcanic events worldwide and those along with the assemblage of fossilized life allows ages to be bracketed. By looking at the fossils in a rock each fossil can give you an upper limit and lower limit to the age of the rock. If it has enough fossils you can get a very accurate date. Here is an article that might help to explain:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/...

“Keep the change...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#81290 Mar 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i did. the creation story is wrong..known fact. no flood ever. known fact.
your cult lied to you...often.
The truth of the matter is that science does indeed point to the earth once being covered with water... the only disagreement between the the bible and science is the time frame.

01 January 2009 Early Earth 'was covered in water'

http://www.earthdive.com/site/news/newsdetail...

The article could have just as well been titled...

01 January 2009 Early Earth 'was "flooded" in water'

I pointed this out already, but you still insist on presenting false claims?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81292 Mar 17, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth of the matter is that science does indeed point to the earth once being covered with water... the only disagreement between the the bible and science is the time frame.
01 January 2009 Early Earth 'was covered in water'
http://www.earthdive.com/site/news/newsdetail...
The article could have just as well been titled...
01 January 2009 Early Earth 'was "flooded" in water'
I pointed this out already, but you still insist on presenting false claims?
It is extremely foolish to try to claim the difference was only a time frame.

We can easily show it took hundreds of millions of years for the various sedimentary rocks to be deposited. We can show there was no man, heck there was nothing much more complicated than slime mold 2.5 billion years ago. So between those two Noah's flood is still purely mythological.

It is a bedtime story and nothing more.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#81293 Mar 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i hate to make you look even more foolish, but are you aware of the limitations of how far back carbon dating can go?
look it up.
what organic material is it that they are dating next to a 600,000year old fossil,and what would that tell them?
again, research then post...you will look less foolish.(not that you seem ot care about that at all...)
Carbon dating is good to only about 50,000 years.

I don't know why fundies keep trying to fault something that isn't even used for what they are talking about.

Well...actually I do know why they do that.

They need to lie to support their claims.

There's just no other way.

“Keep the change...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#81294 Mar 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
But we don't close our eyes...we have real experts who look at creationists confabulations occasionally and tell the truth about it.
Do you think we just make stuff up like you guys do??
No, no, no my friend...we have people, people who actually know science and practice it every day.
There is NO conspiracy here. Scientists are just a bunch of geeks who are prone to tell the truth about their findings.
That is the claim by scientists, about scientists... But when you take into account such things as peer pressure to support present data...showing results that support present data for funding etc. etc...
You have in place an system, that is only propagating ideas that are politically motivated to further advance an ideological hierarchy...not truth, as you claim.

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
Post "any three words" (Sep '12) 2 min Poppyann 3,311
Funny!! Word association game. (Nov '13) 5 min Poppyann 4,218
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 7 min Roxie Darling 4,246
Word Association (Mar '10) 11 min Roxie Darling 21,289
Favorite Bible Verses (Apr '10) 13 min Roxie Darling 1,589
One Word (Jan '09) 16 min Roxie Darling 17,272
Name an item game 17 min Roxie Darling 268
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 42 min Poppyann 411
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Jethro 200,772
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 5 hr Hypocrite Hunter 61,407
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 5 hr -Mo Jo- 33,655
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 6 hr beatlesinthebog 9,094
More from around the web