Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201198 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.

Gillette

Packwood, IA

#84067 Mar 31, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, all of us outside of your bronze age fairy tale cult are well aware. They include willful ignorance, delusion, holier-than-thou-arrogance, childlike belief in fairy tales, rejection of science and history, rejection of reality, hatred of anything that doesn't conform to your silly "literal and inerrant holy book" cult, etc..
MIDutch, welcome back! Have you been away? Or just posting on other threads?

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#84068 Mar 31, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
When the scientific law was discovered in physics “The law of non-contradiction” was validated in philosophy and backed with empirical evidence. The scientific law discovered in physics principles states a universal law is constant (un-changing/absolute) that governs all in the universe.
“Gravity is described from the point of view of a universal law. This implies that gravity is a force that should behave in similar ways regardless of where you are in the universe”
“G is the universal gravitational constant. It is basically a conversion factor to adjust the number and units so they come out to the correct value. This is a universal constant so it is true everywhere”.
>>>> http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/physics/ph...
My point is a scientific law such as the “law of gravity” is constant (non-contradictory) and will always govern all. Gravity do not govern us one day and govern not govern us a different day. This would be a contradiction and would violate “the law of non-contradiction” which is founded not only in the scientific law of gravity but all scientific laws regardless of which branch of science you use.
Trying to disprove an absolute (scientific law) found in validated in nature is foolish/illogical.
Last example, using the scientific method found in history also validates absolutes exist in nature because you cannot un-do history. It is constant (never changes) or absolute because what I did yesterday is an absolute event that can be never changed.
To claim a scientific law is not an absolute is a foolish/illogical argument.

You obviously are not a scientist, or even a scientifically minded person. Falsifiability is paramount in science, it is a goal of finding the truth, and why nothing is absolute.
We have constants we call laws that we think maybe constant, and unchanging.

But I proved to you they are not absolute even though they are constants, Newton was 99.00 % right , but Einstein is 99.1 % right. Both are still flawed in some aspects when put to the test.
Neither are absolute and it is not foolish/illogical to realize it.

It is however scientific, and any number of scientific minds on this thread will tell you this.

E=MC^2 overrules F=Ma , but F=Ma is accurate enough to a point.
Where beyond this point it is no longer true and relativistic
equations must take presidence.
FREE SERVANT
#84069 Mar 31, 2013
If those of us who know truth do not stand up for it, then we may allowing those among us who don't know to be taken advantage of and indirectly letting them fall for anything.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#84070 Mar 31, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
If those of us who know truth do not stand up for it, then we may allowing those among us who don't know to be taken advantage of and indirectly letting them fall for anything.
Isn't that exactly what i am doing when i say the bible and the religious cult based on it is a proven lie?

glad you support my efforts and see the tuth in them...

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#84071 Mar 31, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
When the scientific law was discovered in physics “The law of non-contradiction” was validated in philosophy and backed with empirical evidence. The scientific law discovered in physics principles states a universal law is constant (un-changing/absolute) that governs all in the universe.
“Gravity is described from the point of view of a universal law. This implies that gravity is a force that should behave in similar ways regardless of where you are in the universe”
“G is the universal gravitational constant. It is basically a conversion factor to adjust the number and units so they come out to the correct value. This is a universal constant so it is true everywhere”.
>>>> http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/physics/ph...
My point is a scientific law such as the “law of gravity” is constant (non-contradictory) and will always govern all. Gravity do not govern us one day and govern not govern us a different day. This would be a contradiction and would violate “the law of non-contradiction” which is founded not only in the scientific law of gravity but all scientific laws regardless of which branch of science you use.
Trying to disprove an absolute (scientific law) found in validated in nature is foolish/illogical.
Last example, using the scientific method found in history also validates absolutes exist in nature because you cannot un-do history. It is constant (never changes) or absolute because what I did yesterday is an absolute event that can be never changed.
To claim a scientific law is not an absolute is a foolish/illogical argument.
Is this the law you are talking about??
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84072 Mar 31, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
Giving everybody one! NO EXCEPTIONS!
Apparently you didn't understand what I was getting at. Do banana beef sandwiches help us decide what is moral?
Infinite Force wrote:
Don’t worry, my method of reasoning got it and it follows the scientific method without using controlled experiments in the lab. Don’t worry it’s backed with empirical data as well.
This self-evident truth is un-deniable as well!
Nah, your method is very Aristotelian. And we threw that out many many centuries ago.
Infinite Force wrote:
My discovery is a scientific moral law! I just want to know how you concluded this don’t exist by your scientific method? The answer is super simplistic to understand.
By the simple fact you've been unable to demonstrate it. Morality is not determined by science. It's an abstract concept. Like Star Wars.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84073 Mar 31, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you are saying that you hold the scepter of all truth and judgment over character. Calling people liars from your position is amazing. My point is you are passing judgment on people and things from a position of what truth, your non or part knowledge.
Never claimed to hold any such thing at all. All I do is point out people's actions. If they lie then there is no problem in calling them a liar. It's that simple.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84074 Mar 31, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
A scientific law is the truth. The truth must follow the universal constant principle a well. Just observing empirical evidence and interpreting the data does not make it a scientific law or truth.
I prefer to use the term self- evident truth instead of the word truth. Both or the same by the constant principle because they contain the word truth! I choose one definition over the other because it is backed with empirical evidence, it’s un-deniable and it’s simple to explain.
ALL UNIVERSAL STATEMENTS IS SCIENTIFIC! Don’t forget, a scientific law is a universal statement backed with empirical evidence and verified repeatedly which demonstrates it is CONSTANTLY producing the same (law of non-contradictory) results.
NOTE: When I use all caps it’s like me using a high-lighter on a piece of paper. I can ensure you I am not yelling.
Mercury broke the law. So what do you suggest we do? Arrest it?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84075 Mar 31, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
Christians or any other religions who documents mediate for the name of your GOD! Please give me your definition on how ALL humans should behave on planet earth?
Hence, How do your teachings from the name of your GOD tell "ME" how do I suppose to behave?
__________
People who support and up-hold the theory of evolution. How does your theory tell me or influence the civil laws of the United States of America? Likewise, non-citizens of the United States of America, what and how do you determine your laws that tell humans how they should behave?
A law is universal and constant. IT SHOULD NEVER CHANGE and it should govern all humans on planet earth. Natural Law and Civil law should be one law governing all humans on planet earth. Because the natural LAW governs ALL humans on planet earth EQUALLY, thus should the civil law EQUALLY!
SCIENCE MISSION IS TO SOLVE PROBLEMS! Likewise, the truth is the answer to all problems!
Creation Vs. evolution is the topic at hand!
Who concept and methods on the origin of MAN-KIND can solve this riddle?
This is the problem. Not everyone agrees with what laws should govern everybody. Which is why you will find all laws are different in every single country on the planet without exception. Heck, even in the US alone they differ, which is why they are different in different states. Take the death penalty for example. Legal in some states, not on others. Should it be legal? Is it "moral"? Who decides? How do we tell if it's moral or not objectively by using the scientific method?

You can't.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84076 Mar 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Isn't that exactly what i am doing when i say the bible and the religious cult based on it is a proven lie?
glad you support my efforts and see the tuth in them...
you don't understand anything and you know what a LIE is? you are clueless.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84077 Mar 31, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears the long age core dating is based on assumptions of uniform median precip/year = time per meter of ice, and doesn't account for early post-flood periods
There have been many floods. There was no global flood.
Mark wrote:
of extreme cycles and snowfall.(When you have polar temperatures make surface contact with warm "very good" oceans, you get catastrophic weather patters and extream snowfall. In other words, they have missed the catastrophe that created the base, just like they missed the radical pole reversals in the Steens.
"Dating is a difficult task. Five different dating methods have been used for Vostok cores, with differences such as 300 years at 100 m depth, 600yr at 200 m, 7000yr at 400 m, 5000yr at 800 m, 6000yr at 1600 m, and 5000yr at 1934 m.[24]"
The Greenland cores homogenize past 60,000 cycles, but then they call out 120,000 YO, how? Because uniform precip. is "assumed".
"Different dating methods makes comparison and interpretation difficult. Matching peaks by visual examination of Moulton and Vostok ice cores suggests a time difference of about 10,000 years but proper interpretation requires knowing the reasons for the differences"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/research/s...
As far as your baseless and crude comments about myself and Dr. Miller, without any knowledge of the facts is telling. You are wrong.
Right. Therefore we must accept your anecdotes at face value despite the fact you cannot support them and Millers own words indicate he was not a YEC. Ergo he really WAS forced to write under an old-Earth paradigm by the evil atheist evolutionist time-travelling conspiracy, or...

... you're just another typical fundie liar for Jesus.

Since the latter has already been established only one of these seem more likely.

What's the "scientific theory" of creationism?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#84078 Mar 31, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
you don't understand anything and you know what a LIE is? you are clueless.
Proven lies. if you could show they are not lies, you would have by now...all you have left is third grade level taunts...

what a waste of a mind....
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84079 Mar 31, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
Absolute law is a code for human conduct that is derived from the morals that are believed to be universal to all human beings.
They cannot be universal for there humans do not fill the universe. And quite likely we are the only humans in the universe.
Infinite Force wrote:
It is also sometimes known as natural law, referencing the idea that it reflects the laws of nature rather than the laws developed by humans. Many nations incorporate absolute law into their legal systems in addition to positive law, which are the laws created by society in order to make it function more smoothly.
The concept of absolute law is very old.
Yes, VERY old. Problem is that science does not DEAL with absolutes. This is because science needs to have the potential for falsification. Without potential falsification, concepts are not scientific. If something is "absolute" then there is no potential for falsification. Ergo it is not scientific.

Your other problem is that you're confusing cultural laws with scientific laws. All that they DO share in common is that both are abstract concepts, not real tangible things.
Infinite Force wrote:
Many societies have had philosophers who argued that humans are bound by universal moral codes of conduct. These moral codes are believed to be innate and unchanging because the principles of morality do not alter even as society itself undergoes shifts. Murder is a classic example of an action that is believed to go against human nature and it is notable that many societies historically and in the modern era have criminalized and heavily penalized murder.
No problem, just redefine the term "murder". That's why it is still okay to kill and not have it called murder if society deems it so. Humans kill all the time. Legally even.
Infinite Force wrote:
Proponents of the concept of absolute law argue that, unlike positive law, it is not developed by legal authorities in response to social needs. Absolute law is instead natural to a society and it is possible to arrive at it by following a logical series of steps. People can understand absolute law without having a grasp of positive law because they should have an innate moral sense that governs basic behaviors.
>>>> http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-absolute-law....
Remember I told you science has an answer for a universal moral law that is scientific. When I say I discovered a scientific moral law it means it stand to reason or is the same as a scientific law.
ANYBODY who claims science do not deals in absolutes does not know the true (ABSOLUTE) meaning of science. The truth is what gave birth to the scientific method.
Sorry, but absolutes are the antithesis of the scientific method. Although it is understandable that you have not grasped this since you are clueless about science.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84080 Mar 31, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
This scientific moral law is what we know as FREEDOM (ability to choose).
Unless (a) God exists. Then there's no such thing as freedom as it is an illusion.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84081 Mar 31, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
When the scientific law was discovered in physics “The law of non-contradiction” was validated in philosophy and backed with empirical evidence. The scientific law discovered in physics principles states a universal law is constant (un-changing/absolute) that governs all in the universe.
“Gravity is described from the point of view of a universal law. This implies that gravity is a force that should behave in similar ways regardless of where you are in the universe”
“G is the universal gravitational constant. It is basically a conversion factor to adjust the number and units so they come out to the correct value. This is a universal constant so it is true everywhere”.
>>>> http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/physics/ph...
Tell me, is that Newtonian or relativistic mechanics in your linky?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84082 Mar 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Proven lies. if you could show they are not lies, you would have by now...all you have left is third grade level taunts...
what a waste of a mind....
You cannot comprehend the truth so you resort to calling them lies. You're a waste of TIME.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84083 Mar 31, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this the law you are talking about??
gravity iz moral

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#84084 Mar 31, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot comprehend the truth so you resort to calling them lies. You're a waste of TIME.
Again, if you could have proven they were true, you would have already...

another lie by Cybele.

do try harder , dear, it is boring showing the weakness of your arguments nad lies.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84085 Mar 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Again, if you could have proven they were true, you would have already...
another lie by Cybele.
do try harder , dear, it is boring showing the weakness of your arguments nad lies.
I don't need to try harder, I just know. And you don't.

It's for me to know and for you to find out.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#84086 Mar 31, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need to try harder, I just know. And you don't.
It's for me to know and for you to find out.
and yet, still no prof-of of this supposed truth you have... why is that again?

proven lies in the religious cults, a claim of knowing they are not lies by Cybele, yet still no proof...

*Jeapordy music playing*...*crickets*....*bad Muzak rendidtion of my favorite Beatles tune*...

still nothing but third grade level jaunts and japes...

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 Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 min Knock off purse s... 7,800
Benghazi (Oct '15) 2 min greymouser 82
News Real estate agent finds 2 women, 63 cats inside... 3 min Knock off purse s... 34
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 5 min Princess Hey 3,467
News Man shoots himself in the face in a weird attem... 8 min Mitts Gold Plated... 7
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 14 min Bezeer 3,295
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 14 min beatlesinthebog 13,456
TRUMP, Donald (Jun '15) 37 min President Trump 148
News Trump's Newest Ad Is So Frickin' WeirdBy Olivia... 1 hr Parden Pard 58
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 1 hr Enzo49 8,487
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Sharlene45 194,229
More from around the web