Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 218823 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

#83971 Mar 30, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
SCPID theory contemplates and explains these truths.
Dammit, Mikey!
Mark

United States

#83972 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
As much as you'd like to pretend that is the case, evidence makes faith in my position superfluous.
<quoted text>
Nope. I've never said that. Ever. That's just yet another one of your caricatures that you are required to use in order to avoid dealing with reality.
Atheism is irrelevant to science. Science makes no theological claims. Therefore:
1 - God does not exist.
2 - God used evolution.
3 - God is a liar.
I am open to all these possibilities.
<quoted text>
Your view is TOTALLY irrelevant. You are simply not important, period.
<quoted text>
I know enough to know you're a typical fundie liar for Jesus. That is all that's required. If you want me to stop calling you a liar then you have to stop lying.
You won't.
And I said the same thing last week.
So far I have been correct.(shrug)
<quoted text>
You mean the guy who accepts common descent and thinks God is dead? That Behe? Do let us know when his IC claims pass peer-review, eh?
<quoted text>
If they were reflective of reality you'd be able to provide evidence instead of personal anecdotes full of appeals to emotion.
<quoted text>
That's because this thread is full of creationists.
<quoted text>
Unless they lie for Jesus, then they get a free pass. Apparently.

See that popup for CSX?, they, UP, NFS, CN, CPR and others would have a good laugh at your assertion of my lack of integrity, liars are lousy inventors.. I must admit a Brit is on the patent with me on part of that one, he retired to NZ. Very glad to hear you are open... but your faith in evo creating things such a gold standard of all truth... Perplexing to me but your biz. Apologize for stereotyping you with atheists, I really am sorry.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83973 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
If you want to believe mercury is not governed by gravity that’s your choice.
I never claimed Mercury is not governed by gravity. Of course it's governed by gravity.
Infinite Force wrote:
Gravity keeps this planet in its orbit. Universal constant stands!
Unless there is no mass. But currently we do have mass. Therefore gravity affects Mercury.
Infinite Force wrote:
The empirical data observed in the laws of nature is not “invented” by humans and behaves a certain way.
ALL laws are invented by humans. They are an abstract concept. Nothing more. This is the part you're not getting.
Infinite Force wrote:
Mercury told me to tell you to stop saying it’s not attracted (gravity) to our star.
It's only attracted to a certain extent. I mean, it doesn't LOVE it, otherwise it would spiral into the sun.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83974 Mar 30, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>actually, i thought it was the warping of space/time that did that...
And gravity warps spacetime.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83975 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Not if "they were the carriers? It is now being postulated that there may have been glacial boundaries in the European populations at some point. I don't have a link at hand to it, but I did read that...so it may be a factor also.
Anyway, something more to add to the puzzle.
Maybe. But humans and neanderthals share DNA, either by ancestry or interbreeding. Which is why I suggest humans would also be susceptible to the same virus. Though it MAY be possible that there was something in human genetics that made us immune but not neanderthals.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#83976 Mar 30, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>actually, i thought it was the warping of space/time that did that...
I never heard of planets in a revolutionary orbit without a sun.

Second, what is time?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83977 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
I speak of the laws that govern the empirical evidence not the empirical evidence itself. This is when you will discover a universal law constant.
And you've "discovered" NO scientific "laws".
Infinite Force wrote:
This is a whole nother level of thinking because now you know you can not come to a conclusion unless it's a scientific law
The highest level in science is a scientific theory. They NEVER get "proven" to be "promoted" to "laws".
Infinite Force wrote:
or self-evident truth.
No such thing. That is an emotional argument used by fundies and cranks. Empirical testing is always required.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83978 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> I follow that, even though it has it's own pitfalls here and there. Like the pelvic bones becoming smaller and making birth even more difficult, resulting in the infant actually being born prematurely in humans as compared to apes.
Nobody said evolution made things perfect.(shrug)
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
This could possibly be a distinct advantage in the human becoming more intelligent though. The child's brain and awareness is still developing for about 1 year after birth, so has a multitude more information during that development period.
Actually it develops for a lot longer than just a year. The hypothesis about human intelligence is that humans don't have a strong anchor-point at the top of their skulls like other apes, in fact the skull is in four pieces as the baby is born which basically helps get the head out during birth. This allowed our brains to expand more than other apes thus enabling our intelligence (which has its own advantages and drawbacks).
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83979 Mar 30, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
As I see it, based on your past stereotyping, belittling and intolerant remarks toward me and others of the same faith or origins understanding, your prejudice is screaming. I see a "stomp them out" attitude in your posts.
If you think you can bully me off because I am of another faith or origins understanding with hate-words and weak arguments, you are very mistaken.
It must be Easter or something, does that explain why you're carrying your own cross? Does merely disagreeing with you amount to "hate"? As for weak arguments, that's projection on your part.

What's the "scientific theory" of creationism?
Mark

United States

#83980 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
1 - Only if you ignore known population sizes and don't take things like wars and diseases into account. Oh, and well done for not realizing that fossilization is a rare process. Despite this we have THOUSANDS of fossils, and they show a good picture of evolutionary development.
2 - Time will tell, eh? However you are referring to work he did from four decades ago. But even if evolution eventually leads us all to extinction, that is a future event and does not affect evolution from getting us to where we are. To claim otherwise would be misrepresenting him. But then, fundies LOVE doing that.(shrug) Also an interesting aside, he's a theistic evolutionist. Meaning he's not a pal of yours, disagrees with you, and uses scientific concepts you reject to make conclusions you disagree with. So you've no reason to take any of his claims seriously anyway. ESPECIALLY since you're a reality-denying YEC who thinks Goddidit with magic.
You can't invoke science you disagree with to claim science you disagree with is wrong. That would only make you a big fat juicy hypocrite.
I'm sure God is proud.
On #1, the math used was a population statistic average over known history. I would need to look up the calc. Agree with the variable's involved. Its a question, not a proof.
On #2, he worked in a time when one could get more non-evolutionary challenges or things to think about past peer review. Never happen today. You can imagine, you could measure his job life in seconds, no 1/2 lives involved.

I knew Dr. M. Miller personally because of his work in Alaska. I once asked, "Maynard, how old is the oldest ice on the planet", his answer; "less than 6000 years", I asked, "do you have documentation on that", "yes its in one of my papers - "in the tables"! He sent me a copy. That was 30 years ago. OK, can we have a truce over this "what God thinks of me" stuff?

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83981 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. Anyone "today"? Even allowing advanced technology...
The pieces are there and the elements are there. We simply need to reproduce them.
It's one of those "things" that throws a cog in the wheel.
Actually we don't need to reproduce them.

Not one person today needs to build a massive stone pyramid to get to heaven.

And to do so would be economically non-viable.

We could do it though.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83982 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me correct your statement from “WE” don’t know if eternity exists to “YOU” don’t know. The dude me and your understanding goes in opposite directions and your conclusions is not the same as mine.
Yes, but you know very little. Eternity works fine for a mathematical concept, but may or may not have much bearing on reality.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#83983 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Gravity keeps this planet in its orbit. Universal constant stands!
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>actually, i thought it was the warping of space/time that did that...
Well you both may be right , but specifically it is the sun and more specifically
Sagi* star that that rules the orbits of everything in our galaxy.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83984 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody said evolution made things perfect.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Actually it develops for a lot longer than just a year. The hypothesis about human intelligence is that humans don't have a strong anchor-point at the top of their skulls like other apes, in fact the skull is in four pieces as the baby is born which basically helps get the head out during birth. This allowed our brains to expand more than other apes thus enabling our intelligence (which has its own advantages and drawbacks).
Yup. Basically what I was saying. I didn't want to turn it into a book.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83985 Mar 30, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Dude, I am sorry you think this is all manufactured, it's not, just like the fact that I lost a very good friend flying seismic gear a few mo. ago, its all real folks. God means a ton to me, because He is all about truth, but more than that, love, forgiveness and understanding. Clear conscience on the 9th. The liar lable is getting old, Bill's wife would slap you for that.
Hey bub, maybe God IS all about truth. YOU on the other hand are not. And don't give me this crapp about what your personal friends would do to me, I did not bring them into this. I don't even know who Bill or his wife are in order to personally insult them. If you continue to make more appeals to emotion that's your problem for getting emotionally involved on the internet. That's why I don't care if fundies call me all the names under the sun. All I've done is expose some of your flawed thinking and scientific inaccuracies, and pointed out when you are lying. I can't falsify your personal anecdotes. You may well be a coal miner and known a guy called Bill. But when you start lying about science bear in mind that people here WILL correct you whether you like it or not. It's your choice whether you want to continue lying or not. It makes no difference to us as fundies around these forums are a dime a dozen.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#83986 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
I speak of the laws that govern the empirical evidence not the empirical evidence itself. This is when you will discover a universal law constant. This is a whole nother level of thinking because now you know you can not come to a conclusion unless it's a scientific law or self-evident truth.
No what you are doing is psychological and a type Socratic thinking, of which has little influence in modern scientific thinking. There is no law that can overturn truth.
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#83987 Mar 30, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
On #1, the math used was a population statistic average over known history. I would need to look up the calc. Agree with the variable's involved. Its a question, not a proof.
1.) you would seriously post a calculation without even CONSIDERING famines; plagues, the effects of wars, etc. on population? LOL!

2.) You would seriously wonder "where all the bones are"? Don't you know that bones decompose rapidly on or under the surface of the earth? Do you think bones are ETERNAL or something?
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
I knew Dr. M. Miller personally because of his work in Alaska. I once asked, "Maynard, how old is the oldest ice on the planet", his answer; "less than 6000 years", I asked, "do you have documentation on that", "yes its in one of my papers - "in the tables"! He sent me a copy. That was 30 years ago. OK, can we have a truce over this "what God thinks of me" stuff?
Let me guess: Dr. Miller was a "Bible-believing Christian"?

We have ice cores MANY TIMES older than that.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

Up to 800,000 years for some cores!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83988 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> That's their hypothesis. I will stick with mine for now....until something definite is discovered.
Where is the repository for all the black holes?
Repository? I thought they were generally star remnants. There is a large cluster at the center of the galaxy though.
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
Where does the "information" go when they "disappear"?
There's two possibilities. They don't disappear and all the information is trapped inside the singularity. Or the information bleeds away as Hawking radiation until there's not enough mass left inside the black hole to maintain itself, then it is destroyed. I'd suggest you ask Polymath if he shows up as he's our resident maths and physics expert.
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
Does "string" play a role in all that?
Dunno.
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
That is why I will stick with the process of cycle.
The age of our universe doesn't conflict with the cycling process. All it states is that our current universal expansion is 13.71 billion years old. But it is still possible that energy is eternal and a new universe is produced upon the death of a previous one. But at each start of a new universal expansion all information of the previous universe is destroyed, meaning we have no idea of its configuration or characteristics. It may not be ever possible to know. Or it might, if we can come up with a unified theory of quantum gravity. Again if you see Polymath ask him about all this since he's sh t-hot on the stuff.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#83989 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me correct your statement from “WE” don’t know if eternity exists to “YOU” don’t know. The dude me and your understanding goes in opposite directions and your conclusions is not the same as mine.
We determined that your conclusions are worthless.
With sound reason and understanding to express why.
You are far short of relevant information in your hypothesis as stated to make a credible explanation, in anything so far stated by yourself.

Is that clear enough for you?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#83990 Mar 30, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
On #1, the math used was a population statistic average over known history. I would need to look up the calc. Agree with the variable's involved. Its a question, not a proof.
On #2, he worked in a time when one could get more non-evolutionary challenges or things to think about past peer review. Never happen today. You can imagine, you could measure his job life in seconds, no 1/2 lives involved.
I knew Dr. M. Miller personally because of his work in Alaska. I once asked, "Maynard, how old is the oldest ice on the planet", his answer; "less than 6000 years", I asked, "do you have documentation on that", "yes its in one of my papers - "in the tables"! He sent me a copy. That was 30 years ago. OK, can we have a truce over this "what God thinks of me" stuff?
Oh my.

Mark has proof that the Ice caps are less than 6,000 years old. Form a noted glaciologist no less. He just forgot to publish that revolutionary claim

Maynard Miller is most famous for his work on the Juneau ice field. That is an actively flowing glacier and it is very possible that the age of the ice in it is less than 6,000 years. That does not mean the ice of the ice caps is only 6,000 years old. That has been shown by several dating methods to be much much older than that.

More made up stories by Mark. We have a very poor liar here.

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
2words into 2new words (May '12) 2 min Old Sam 7,401
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 3 min Mr_FX 61,371
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 3 min Old Sam 9,848
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 4 min Old Sam 15,586
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... (Nov '14) 4 min Judy 123 2,145
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 6 min Old Sam 6,801
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 6 min Enzo49 68,403
Back in the day...... 14 min Old Sam 87
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 49 min Enzo49 209,991
News Trump's Dark, Weird, Inaugural Campaign Speech 57 min Enzo49 75
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr Enzo49 2,744
More from around the web