Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216695 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

#81942 Mar 20, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
The working Universe as a whole support the idea of an underlying intelligence.
Nope, that's merely argument from incredulity. You don't know how the universe came to be therefore an invisible magic man made it.
xxxooxxx wrote:
Your idea that the Universe virtually popped out of nothing...thereby suggesting a effect without a cause,is quite ludicrous and is nothing more that a scientific fantasy.
Not really, quantum fluctuations are scientifically observed. Radiometric decay is scientifically observed.

Your invisible magic man also violates the same cause and effect "rule". Which potentially might not necessarily be a problem.

The only problem is that it's not scientifically observed.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#81943 Mar 20, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
and here it is again...the idea that if you use a computer,a proven science technology, you should except all abstract science concepts on the basis that science makes gadgets that work.lol...quite a ridiculous assumption by anybody's standards.
Science is not abstract. Maths, yes. Science, no. If science works then you should accept it only because it is reality. Fundies however like to accept the fruits but not the concepts that led to them. This is because they are big fat juicy intellectually dishonest hypocrites who couldn't give a fig about science in the slightest.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#81944 Mar 20, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
The working Universe as a whole support the idea of an underlying intelligence.
Your idea that the Universe virtually popped out of nothing...thereby suggesting a effect without a cause,is quite ludicrous and is nothing more that a scientific fantasy.
again, you point out that you don't even understand the vewry basics of a theory you are trying to debunk...

you look foolish....again.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#81945 Mar 20, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>so why do you keep posting it when the topic of Noah's flood comes up? why do you poat it at all? you don't believe scientists anyways...
The simple fact was it was in response to the claim that at no time in the earth's history, was it ever covered with water.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#81946 Mar 20, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
The simple fact was it was in response to the claim that at no time in the earth's history, was it ever covered with water.
and ...again...why do you keep bringing it up in when the topic comes to Noah's flood?

and again...you don't beleive scientists... so why would you ever quote their work?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#81947 Mar 20, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
The working Universe as a whole support the idea of an underlying intelligence.
Your idea that the Universe virtually popped out of nothing...thereby suggesting a effect without a cause,is quite ludicrous and is nothing more that a scientific fantasy.
Your presumption that it cannot happen that way demonstrates a lack of education on your part, your assertion that you know the "who" to the equation without even knowing the "how" demonstrates a delusion.Just providing a cause doesn't answer the question presented. Water gets launched into space, it becomes ice, the cause is therefore that the water was launched into space, but how did it get turned into ice?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#81948 Mar 20, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
The simple fact was it was in response to the claim that at no time in the earth's history, was it ever covered with water.
Goalpost moving, you are good at that.

So do you concede that the flood in the bible did not happen?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#81949 Mar 20, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>again, you point out that you don't even understand the vewry basics of a theory you are trying to debunk...
you look foolish....again.
No, anyone who believes that you get an effect without a cause looks foolish.

Unless you can show me one...please do.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#81950 Mar 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Your presumption that it cannot happen that way demonstrates a lack of education on your part, your assertion that you know the "who" to the equation without even knowing the "how" demonstrates a delusion.Just providing a cause doesn't answer the question presented. Water gets launched into space, it becomes ice, the cause is therefore that the water was launched into space, but how did it get turned into ice?
Your presumption that God doesn't exist demonstrates a lack of knowledge.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#81951 Mar 20, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
No, anyone who believes that you get an effect without a cause looks foolish.
Unless you can show me one...please do.
No-one is saying there was no cause.

you really should try to learn about the things you attempt to speak about. you are making an ass out of yourself in public.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#81952 Mar 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Goalpost moving, you are good at that.
So do you concede that the flood in the bible did not happen?
The only thing that I concede, is that is what you tell me. And at this point, your incredibility rating is way off the charts.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#81953 Mar 20, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing that I concede, is that is what you tell me. And at this point, your incredibility rating is way off the charts.
you even commenting about other peoples' credibility or "incredibility", whatever that is, is the best joke of the day.

nothing you way is worth listening to as you don[t even understand what it is you ar talking about.
most people like to have a basic understanding of the topic at hand..not you, just run your mouth at full throttle with no rudder...

what a joke..

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#81954 Mar 20, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Your presumption that God doesn't exist demonstrates a lack of knowledge.
You have that backwards, the assumption that something does not exist until evidence is provided of it's existence is sanity, what you are doing is delusion. Again though, how did the water get turned into ice when launched into space? Answer that question, if you dare.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#81955 Mar 20, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing that I concede, is that is what you tell me. And at this point, your incredibility rating is way off the charts.
"Incredibility rating?" I propose nothing that is incredible, only that which is credible.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#81956 Mar 20, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>No-one is saying there was no cause.
you really should try to learn about the things you attempt to speak about. you are making an ass out of yourself in public.
really?...

Even scientists use the term an effect without a cause when talking about the Quantum theory...back to school for you.lol

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#81957 Mar 20, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
really?...
Even scientists use the term an effect without a cause when talking about the Quantum theory...back to school for you.lol
We were talking about the big bang...back to making a fool of your self for you...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#81958 Mar 20, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
really?...
Even scientists use the term an effect without a cause when talking about the Quantum theory...back to school for you.lol
You have already denounced quantum mechanics, you cannot use it as anything to support your arguments.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#81959 Mar 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You have that backwards, the assumption that something does not exist until evidence is provided of it's existence is sanity, what you are doing is delusion. Again though, how did the water get turned into ice when launched into space? Answer that question, if you dare.
Your claim is that there is an effect without a cause.
You claim that things pop out of nothing...like pink elephants. Have you told this to your psychiatrist?
Mark

Salem, OR

#81960 Mar 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you became deluded later in life. This is important ... why?
You cannot address anything scientific, any actual facts, so you resort to non-sequitors. Let me know when you have something that's actually, I don't know, factual maybe?
I worked over Evo pretty hard with my comments on cell structure, internal code, language convention, data size, lack of any write heads, parallelism (see Denton, where it was found that completely unrelated genes control unrelated appendages but they are perfectly identical!) and Cricks (DNA's co-discoverer) ultimate answer to it all; it was flown here in space ships!(See his book "Panasperma"), kindda makes it all Science-fiction to me.

Look into it from a design standpoint - Intelligence operating on chemicals. You are asking me to "believe" that chemicals self-organized, created a mechanism and language convention, plus kept hopping along creating species and evolving and adapting to water, air, sun, light and dark, and have sex mates in a mindless and random self-directed manner? Life is beautiful! People are beautiful creatures! Windows 3 did not become W7 by operating 50 mil years. This works if one is ignorant of how the cell works, and mindlessly accepted the teachers lectures and pretty pictures in the textbooks. Evo's say time will do all of this, that's an exceptional faith!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#81961 Mar 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You have already denounced quantum mechanics, you cannot use it as anything to support your arguments.
So you ask people to provide scientific evidence...and then reject it because it's scientific evidence?...quite interesting.

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
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 min Denny CranesPlace 67,156
Any Word ! (Mar '11) 4 min Princess Hey 6,395
Let's play "follow the word" (Jun '08) 9 min Princess Hey 48,260
News Trump's bizarre claim that the Clinton email co... 10 min Rider on the Storm 999
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 27 min Mr_FX 61,050
Post any FOUR words (Feb '16) 28 min Mr_FX 2,380
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 30 min Mr_FX 5,796
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 44 min Bad Bex 10,580
All Christmas Carols/Songs and Quotes.. 51 min Truth 55
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Sublime1 206,953
More from around the web