Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221750 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.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#85117 Apr 5, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Anybody who thinks they don't have preexisting biases and can do totally unbiased scientific inquiry is severely deluded. We see what we want to see all the time.

Hogwash , peer review is not a mass hallucination shared by independent researchers. It is however a consensus of minds in a concerted effort to find the truth. What ever bias is held is destroyed by the many eyes that must see the same exact thing.
If there is conflict there is no consensus, if there is consensus
there is no conflict. Except by unvalidated accusation , exactly like yours which has zero merit.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#85118 Apr 5, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a number of folks on the secular science side that are not shrugging, but of course they took the time to read and evaluate the information that was attached and have the background to understand it. The concept of a sweeping speed shift in the uniform isochron rates in the past, based on conflicting rates in non-isotope related measurements in the same formations is real. Some think this is healthy research, I respect their honesty.
Then you respect nothing for they are not honest. The information has already been evaluated before the fundies even wrote their apologetics. There are two models - one involves radioactive decay at known rates, another sterilizes the entire universe. Only one of these interpretations is valid, especially in light of the fact the latter requires invisible Jewish magic to save it. Scientists have already tried accelerating radioactive decay by subjecting compounds to intense temperatures, the resulting changes being an observable but ultimately negligible difference in the appearance of age. Like you your fellow liars for Jesus ignore the fact that their position undermines itself, which is why you were refuted long ago.

You cannot claim science proves science is wrong therefore Goddidit with magic. Yet that is precisely what you continue to do. But then if you didn't carry on lying for Jesus then you would not be an apologist.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#85119 Apr 5, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Anybody who thinks they don't have preexisting biases and can do totally unbiased scientific inquiry is severely deluded. We see what we want to see all the time.
Yes, that's because you are a creationist. Whereby testing helps remove bias. Now, if evolution involved merely a small group of people with vehement opinions and very little in the way of scientific support then perhaps you'd have a point. However that far more accurately applies to the creationist movement. Since biology on the other hand is supported by every major scientific institution on the planet and supported by literally thousands of scientists and hundreds of thousands of scientifically peer-reviewed published papers on the subject along with numerous practical applications ranging from medicine to agriculture.

Of course it's entirely possible that all biology is wrong cuz everything was all done differently by an invisible Jew using magic.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#85120 Apr 5, 2013
Mary Magdalena wrote:
<quoted text>
Did Jesus Really Exist?
By Paul L. Maier, The Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University
"No, he didn't!" some skeptics claim, thinking that this is a quick, powerful lever with which to pry people away from "the fable of Christianity." But the lever crumbles at its very first use. In fact, there is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth certainly lived than for most famous figures of the ancient past. This evidence is of two kinds: internal and external, or, if you will, sacred and secular. In both cases, the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by "the village atheist," bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation.
Read much more By Paul L. Maier, The Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University
“The proposition that "Jesus Christ" never existed relies on much more than simply stating that we don't have evidence for his existence or that the Gospels are unbelievable. Showing that the story of Jesus Christ is not based on a person in any meaningful way requires showing that the story of Jesus Christ is better explained as having developed through non-historical methods than it is through historical methods.

We can identify literary sources and traditions that are not only capable of providing all of the material for the Jesus story, but indeed it is clear that the Jesus story is developed from these source materials, and this fact undermines the possibility that the stories are based on observed historical events.

If the crucifixion of Jesus were based on an observed historical event, then we should not expect that virtually every line of the crucifixion narrative comes from existing Hebrew scriptures (including themes that were mistranslated in the Greek sources that were used).

Not only does the scriptural basis of the Jesus stories undermine their historical credibility, but we also have historical facts, or lack thereof, which corroborate Jesus' absence of existence….

….Not only can Christianity be explained without a real historical Jesus at its core, but the historical facts that we do have are best explained if Jesus never existed.”

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#85121 Apr 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>is Klingon or Vulcan one of those eight?
Not yet...
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

#85122 Apr 5, 2013
@ Tinka

What??!!

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#85123 Apr 5, 2013
Mary Magdalena wrote:
You are a self proclaimed ape (smirk)
I am not. Why? Because I am mankind
When you make statements like this, you are just demonstrating a level of ignorance that really undercuts any further argument you might make.

It's the equivalent of saying: "I'm not a mammal, I'm human"
Or "I'm not an animal with a spinal cord, I'm human".

I'm going to go ahead and assume you don't understand why either of those two statements poses a problem and explain it to you.

You have mammary glands, therefore you are a mammal. All humans are mammals.

You have a spinal cord, all humans have spinal cords.

You can be both things, they are not contradictory.

You are an ape. All humans are apes. To claim you aren't is just to demonstrate a profound ignorance of what the word means.
(Smirk)
I find it endlessly amusing that you would "smirk" after displaying your own ignorance.

Seriously, when we read posts like this, we think about the mentally deficient people who ride the little buses. The people who smear their own sh1t in their hair and proclaim: "I'm pretty! I'm pretty!".

No, M. You aren't pretty. You have sh1t in your hair.

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#85124 Apr 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. This explains why you're 150 years out of date.(shrug)
See back in his day, "They haven't found the missing link yet!" was a valid argument.
Today anyone with the slightest inkling about science knows it's about a dumb an argument as you could possibly get.

I pointed out the narcissism of some scientists. What 150 years out of date. Today we have "scientists" that think everyone should believe everything that comes out of thier mouths as fact.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#85125 Apr 6, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>There are no absolutes.
Come on man! You got to do better than this. May I ask, how did you (personally) conclude this or who taught you this? Who the heck is teaching you people this or how are you (personally) scientifically concluding this using your scientific method?
THIS IS NOT GOOD and it’s not a laughing matter either, because the majority people I meet and talk to hold the same view as you.

They even taught this in my Ethics class in college! If the majority of the people think like this as a whole (which I think they do) we have a serious problem as a civilization.
Teaching and speaking in non-absolute truths means you can’t come to a final answer and this is why there is so much confusion, wars and dis-order on this planet. Telling people there are no absolute truths that mean anything goes (nothing but opinions) and it does not work like this.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#85126 Apr 6, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> That still does'nt count, like i said, people of historical importance like them wrote and talked about Christ. Like i earlier said, there were Jewish conspiracies, using the Roman strong holds to stop the whole Jesus issue, that was why there was no proper documentation after his death on earth.
No, what counts is that you throw names around but when one of your claimed sources is checked, its bogus.

What you have now done is wrap yourself in a perfectly circular, self-referencing loop. Now the lack of evidence for Jesus is just more evidence of Jesus! Barking mad.

Sure, there MAY have been a conspiracy to explain why there is NO reliable evidence that a miracle man who was really God Himself walked the earth.

Or, more likely by a million to one, there was a reformist Jewish rabbi who got into trouble for stirring things up and a bunch of wildly inflated stories about him not even recorded until decades after his death, by which time the stories had grown out of all proportion to reality. Not surprising in a culture already prepared by centuries of expectation that some Messiah was supposed to emerge.

Nowadays people expect Aliens and there are many witnesses for them, but you don't believe those do you? Or is the lack of good evidence just something that the Aliens or the Government have carefully arranged? Can you even see the parallel?

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#85127 Apr 6, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
I pointed out the narcissism of some scientists. What 150 years out of date. Today we have "scientists" that think everyone should believe everything that comes out of thier mouths as fact.
Yeah they sure do and I got something special for these pseudo-scientific researchers and scientist, especially when they promote the origin of species as not being fixed, because if you are talking about reality and claim this is how it supposed to be, this affect every-body way of living because people be putting their trust into the so called scientific leaders.

First of all people need to know find the truths themselves and they don’t and this is the problem right here. All these people who are rejecting the absolute truths I put out with simplicity or nothing but regurgitaters (mimicks) of the so called scientific researchers, scientist they so trust!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#85128 Apr 6, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on man! You got to do better than this. May I ask, how did you (personally) conclude this or who taught you this? Who the heck is teaching you people this or how are you (personally) scientifically concluding this using your scientific method?
THIS IS NOT GOOD and it’s not a laughing matter either, because the majority people I meet and talk to hold the same view as you.
They even taught this in my Ethics class in college! If the majority of the people think like this as a whole (which I think they do) we have a serious problem as a civilization.
Teaching and speaking in non-absolute truths means you can’t come to a final answer and this is why there is so much confusion, wars and dis-order on this planet. Telling people there are no absolute truths that mean anything goes (nothing but opinions) and it does not work like this.
There may be absolute truths, but you and I as humans have no way of knowing with certainty when we have found one. Disagree? Then tell me, Farce, how do YOU determine when you are absolutely certain that something is absolutely true?

We have access to approximate truths and probabilities. And that is just fine. It means that with some mental effort, we can get things approximately right.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#85129 Apr 6, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Anybody who thinks they don't have preexisting biases and can do totally unbiased scientific inquiry is severely deluded. We see what we want to see all the time.
That is why academia is a competitive pursuit with critical analysis of claims, tests of claimed facts, and why researchers love to point out errors and faults in the work of others, and why there is peer review.

Science does not depend on the perfect objectivity of the players, but the process by which competition with an inflow of new observable facts and the application of logical consistency will eventually move us towards a more accurate understanding.

By contrast, the sterility of scriptural scholarship is based on the complete lack (and inadmissibility) of new material, with the players endlessly trying to figure out unreliable scriptures from thousands of years ago. Perhaps the most progress they have made in the last few centuries was merely to learn just how unreliable their scriptures are!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#85130 Apr 6, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
I pointed out the narcissism of some scientists. What 150 years out of date. Today we have "scientists" that think everyone should believe everything that comes out of thier mouths as fact.
No, you said you think some are like that. you did not point out any such thing. just because you think something, or someone told you to repeat something does not make it true.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#85132 Apr 6, 2013
:: An intense euphoric feeling is growing with-in me when the absolute truth is challenged by an inferior complex way of thinking::
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, I see your problem. Agnostic view is B - that a God is not provable. Agnostic is NOT A, never has, and never will be. And agnostic is what science is.
Agnostic is what science is = JUNK INFORMATION SPEWING OUT OF YOUR INFERIOR COMPLEX WAY OF THINKING!
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The answer is simple - you don't understand science. You don't understand logic. And you claim to be God by claiming knowledge of "absolute truth". Which in itself violates your own rule of non-contradiction because you know jackshit.(shrug)
I don’t know jack-shyt?! I don’t know logic?! I contradict my own scientific law which is the foundation to my understanding?! Yes, I am a supreme being in understanding and that is an absolute truth, and I NEVER CLAIMED TO BE THE SUPREME BEING THAT CREATED THE UNIVERSE and this is what you are trying to portray me as you dumb mother F****!

So stop hating because I EARNED the right to call myself a supreme being you piece of sh!t because I only know, understand and speak in absolute truths!
Theory of evolution on the origin of species as not a fixed species in violation of the law of non-contradiction backed with physical evidence observed in nature BECAUSE NATURE DOES NOT CONTRADICT IT’S SELF!

Scientific conclusion: Theory of evolution claiming non-fixed species = ABSOLUTE JUNK INFORMATION!

>>>> https://www.google.com/search...

Empirical physical evidence in nature demonstrates mutations are harmful and now I apply my scientific method founded on an absolute truth called the “law of non-contradiction” BECAUSE NATURE DOES NOT CONTRADICT IT’S SELF!

A. Mutations “are” beneficial in nature!
B. Mutation “are not” beneficial in nature!

Now “the dude” apply your sh!tty inferior agnostic scientific way of thinking to the observable scientific physical evidence I present to you in the above link and choose A or B!
Eristotle

Indianapolis, IN

#85133 Apr 6, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow that's scary, now is there any evidence of this?
Or do you expect us to take your word on it?
No, I just take it on faith that that's the way it happened...same way the creationists and the evolutionists do.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#85134 Apr 6, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
:: An intense euphoric feeling is growing with-in me when the absolute truth is challenged by an inferior complex way of thinking::
<quoted text>
Agnostic is what science is = JUNK INFORMATION SPEWING OUT OF YOUR INFERIOR COMPLEX WAY OF THINKING!
<quoted text>
I don’t know jack-shyt?! I don’t know logic?! I contradict my own scientific law which is the foundation to my understanding?! Yes, I am a supreme being in understanding and that is an absolute truth, and I NEVER CLAIMED TO BE THE SUPREME BEING THAT CREATED THE UNIVERSE and this is what you are trying to portray me as you dumb mother F****!
So stop hating because I EARNED the right to call myself a supreme being you piece of sh!t because I only know, understand and speak in absolute truths!
Theory of evolution on the origin of species as not a fixed species in violation of the law of non-contradiction backed with physical evidence observed in nature BECAUSE NATURE DOES NOT CONTRADICT IT’S SELF!
Scientific conclusion: Theory of evolution claiming non-fixed species = ABSOLUTE JUNK INFORMATION!
>>>> https://www.google.com/search...
Empirical physical evidence in nature demonstrates mutations are harmful and now I apply my scientific method founded on an absolute truth called the “law of non-contradiction” BECAUSE NATURE DOES NOT CONTRADICT IT’S SELF!
A. Mutations “are” beneficial in nature!
B. Mutation “are not” beneficial in nature!
Now “the dude” apply your sh!tty inferior agnostic scientific way of thinking to the observable scientific physical evidence I present to you in the above link and choose A or B!
" I EARNED the right to call myself a supreme being."

This doesn't set of any alarm bells within the society of the completely insane, but it does everywhere else.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#85135 Apr 6, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
" I EARNED the right to call myself a supreme being."
This doesn't set of any alarm bells within the society of the completely insane, but it does everywhere else.
you don't seriously think he gets out into any kind of society, insane or not, at all, do you?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#85136 Apr 6, 2013
Eristotle wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I just take it on faith that that's the way it happened...same way the creationists and the evolutionists do.
no, evolutionists use the facts available. creationsist have not one fact to use...they have to use faith in proven lies..
Eristotle

Indianapolis, IN

#85137 Apr 6, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Your scientific method will never work and all it is doing is deteriorating the quality of science because your falsifiable method of reasoning challenges scientific laws and these are absolutes. Science is becoming more and more corrupt because you now have theories challenging scientific laws. THIS IS INSANE!
The scientific method with the falsifiability with-in it will not work eventually because it violates the meaning of how nature behaves and that is non-contradictory.
That isn't my scientific method...those are examples of how the scientific method works.

New theories don't change old minds so much as get accepted by new people coming to the same conclusions of a new theory...and the old theories die off with the old minds.

That's the history of science.

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
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? (Nov '14) 4 min Judy 123 1,127
People, TIP YOUR BARTENDERS!!! 7 min Emerald 4
Let's Play Song Titles With Only Three Words,... (Dec '13) 9 min Judy 123 604
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 13 min Crazy Beautiful 220,650
A to Z songs by title or group! (Dec '16) 13 min CJ Rocker 2,107
Let's Play Songs With Four Words,... (Jul '15) 24 min Judy 123 96
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... (Nov '14) 29 min Judy 123 2,343
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr tom 23,894
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr sugar bear 76,654
What Turns You Off? (Jan '17) 2 hr Yournotgoingtobel... 943
More from around the web