Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 169145 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.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#86089 Apr 13, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> How could you tell?
I'm not the only one who thinks it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =6jIeHsefCPkXX
i know people who think the Earth is a living organism, it doesn't mean they are correct.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#86090 Apr 13, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i know people who think the Earth is a living organism, it doesn't mean they are correct.
Are you implying the biosphere is not alive?
KJV

United States

#86091 Apr 13, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>You write:
“Your science and you claim that the universes is 13.7 billion or 14 billion or 15 billion years old give or take. The exact date is not important at all.
The fact is you and your science agree on one very important item. That item is the universe had a start, A beginning.“

You are right the exact date is not important; in fact the exact date is impossible to determine. As far as the beginning goes, we ‘think’ it had a beginning 14+- billion years ago

You write:
“The word universe means all matter and space and energy, not that is known but ALL matter, space & energy that would include Multi verses.”

I don’t know that this is true, and I don’t believe you do either. Are you a physicist like Stephen Hawking?

You write:
“So we have a date that science and you agree that the Universe (ALL matter, Space & energy) started. Before the start of the universe there was no matter or space or energy because if there was then there would have been the universe and hence no beginning date that science and you claim was about 14 billion years ago ( give or take a few billion ). So this brings us to the same point that you laugh at Theist about. Your universe model sprang fourth from nothingness.”

Yes, this is the data that those scientists in the field hold. It sprang from essentially nothing, or a miniscule point of energy. I’m not a physicist so you need to go easy on me here..:-)

I do see where you’re going with this.

You write:
“Nothing then poof everything.
But in your case there is nothing or no reason for this magic to have happened.”

I think it is entirely possible that sometime in the future a genius physicist may solve the problem, so we’ll just have to wait for that moment.

I think your God and our universe are inscrutable. Actually at this time I think your God is not real. We understand that the universe is true because we live in it and can see millions/billions of various points of data in it. We know we humans are made of star stuff, as we have a small bit of knowledge about how the universe works.

Your God is a real mystery. He has never shown himself, or done anything at all to prove his existence. His book, the Bible, is being shown to be nothing but myth/stories with some little connections to historical characters and places. ALL the foundational stories that set ‘Him’ up as the creator of our world and us humans are being proven wrong. It’s going to be interesting to follow what happens in the coming years.
"I don’t know that this is true, and I don’t believe you do either. Are you a physicist like Stephen Hawking?"

Just using all dictionary and schooling I've had. Of course the new line of science does seem to want to play with the correct meaning of the word because of the Multi dimensions ideas.
There really is no need for them to change the definition of the word. what science really need to do when they are talking about our universe and only this dimension the they should have a new word meaning that rather then changing words meaning. The word universe was first coined to mean all space, matter and energy. Not all that is known at the time for if that was the case Hubble would be looking at other universes.

"Your God is a real mystery. He has never shown himself".

In modern times you are correct. However God has shown himself many times in the past. Have you never seen the movie Monty Pythons "Quest for the Holy Grail"? Proofs right there.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#86092 Apr 13, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you implying the biosphere is not alive?
I am saying the planet is not a living being. there are living organisms on it.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#86093 Apr 13, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"I don’t know that this is true, and I don’t believe you do either. Are you a physicist like Stephen Hawking?"
Just using all dictionary and schooling I've had. Of course the new line of science does seem to want to play with the correct meaning of the word because of the Multi dimensions ideas.
There really is no need for them to change the definition of the word. what science really need to do when they are talking about our universe and only this dimension the they should have a new word meaning that rather then changing words meaning. The word universe was first coined to mean all space, matter and energy. Not all that is known at the time for if that was the case Hubble would be looking at other universes.
"Your God is a real mystery. He has never shown himself".
In modern times you are correct. However God has shown himself many times in the past. Have you never seen the movie Monty Pythons "Quest for the Holy Grail"? Proofs right there.
if you believe that, then you must believe that all the gods invented by man have shown themselves. there is no evidence your myth is any truer than the others.
KJV

United States

#86094 Apr 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>No. Its about changes to the nucleotide sequence, large or small.

The EFFECTS of some mutations might be to change eye colour. Or lengthen a limb slightly. Or increase the bone density in the nose. etc etc etc Whether this changes the odds of survival is what determines whether such a change gets selected for or against.

But the effects of MOST mutations is exactly zero.

That is biology as understood by biologists. Not your comic book "grow a pair of gills, you pussy!" scenario.

Growing a pair of gills would be the result of a long series of small mutations, most or all of which would offer some slight benefit along the way even if that benefit is not actually "gills" until very late in the development. The earlier stages might be providing some other function or an intermediate one.
"No. Its about changes to the nucleotide sequence, large or small."

How can switching on or off an already existing switch be mutations? Evolution? The switch is all ready there!

If that is a mutation then your house mutates every time a light is turned on or off. The out come of the light being turn on is light is in the room you're in "mutation"? I think not for it was designed to be turned on and off.
The same as for genes designed to be turned on and off right from the beginning.
KJV

United States

#86095 Apr 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>Science is honest enough to say that before the big bang - we don't know. Nobody does, including you.

Instead of admitting it, you pretend you have an answer in "God", yet all you have done is move the question back one step.

The reality is that nobody knows why there is anything, and "God" is not an answer.
"Science is honest enough to say that before the big bang - we don't know. Nobody does, including you"

True science doesn't know. We do because we were told by the creator how and why he did it. Because science and you cover your ears and run around going La La La La. Doesn't make our claim less valid. You would rather fully believe a guess like the BB that they can't have a clue too how or why then read a book that answers all of those question.

God is the answer. Science has not and can not answer or reproduce any of it's big three myths.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#86096 Apr 13, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Science is honest enough to say that before the big bang - we don't know. Nobody does, including you"
True science doesn't know. We do because we were told by the creator how and why he did it. Because science and you cover your ears and run around going La La La La. Doesn't make our claim less valid. You would rather fully believe a guess like the BB that they can't have a clue too how or why then read a book that answers all of those question.
God is the answer. Science has not and can not answer or reproduce any of it's big three myths.
No, you have a book of myth written by bunch of bronze age sheep shaggers. Science is not based upon guesswork, it is based upon evidence.

Now we might not laugh at you so much if you had just a smidgeon evidence that supported your ridiculous claims.
KJV

United States

#86097 Apr 13, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>if you believe that, then you must believe that all the gods invented by man have shown themselves. there is no evidence your myth is any truer than the others.
Yes there is a huge difference. We have the Bible.

2500 prophecies
2000 fulfilled to a T

History recorded in the Bible that as recently as the past decade has proof been found that backs up the Bible.

Make no mistake the Bible is unique and correct.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#86098 Apr 13, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>I am saying the planet is not a living being. there are living organisms on it.
Life is everywhere on it and in it.
Microbes are found as much as 3 miles below the surface of land.
It certainly appears that the Earth itself is what made life possible, it is a fact that it is alive, but whether it is conscious
is a larger question. Since the biosphere is what made biogenesis possible and is unique to Earth , I don't think we can say it is not alive, it is the only thing we know to be alive.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/03/06/1735...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#86099 Apr 13, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes there is a huge difference. We have the Bible.
2500 prophecies
2000 fulfilled to a T
History recorded in the Bible that as recently as the past decade has proof been found that backs up the Bible.
Make no mistake the Bible is unique and correct.
Sorry, wrong.

Many of them written after the fact. No real prophecies fulfilled and many failed.

Try defending the terribly failed Tyre prophecy.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#86100 Apr 13, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes there is a huge difference. We have the Bible.
2500 prophecies
2000 fulfilled to a T
History recorded in the Bible that as recently as the past decade has proof been found that backs up the Bible.
Make no mistake the Bible is unique and correct.
no, they are not prophecies filled to a tee. they are vague , horoscope like predictions that are useless.

other religious cults have their stories and books also. your cult has nothing to support it being more correct or true than any other cult.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#86101 Apr 13, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> It in fact is , the timescale involved is extremely large in comparison to a human life, in fact it is extremely large in comparison to the lives of all humans combined.
But the universe itself is not exempt from the second law.
Nothing in this universe is exempt from it.
Eventually it will suffer heat death.
Quite right with the exception of the Almighty.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#86102 Apr 13, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Life is everywhere on it and in it.
Microbes are found as much as 3 miles below the surface of land.
It certainly appears that the Earth itself is what made life possible, it is a fact that it is alive, but whether it is conscious
is a larger question. Since the biosphere is what made biogenesis possible and is unique to Earth , I don't think we can say it is not alive, it is the only thing we know to be alive.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/03/06/1735...
yes, but if all life died, the earth would still be there, and life may again arise on it. the Earth is not aliving being. it harbors life, and it has living organisms on it and in it, but it is not alive.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#86103 Apr 13, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes there is a huge difference. We have the Bible.
2500 prophecies
2000 fulfilled to a T
History recorded in the Bible that as recently as the past decade has proof been found that backs up the Bible.
Make no mistake the Bible is unique and correct.
your bible is full of proven lies, i wouldn't use it for proof if you wish to be taken seriously. i wouldn't use it as a moral guide either, as it is shown to be horrible as that also. Can't really think of anything it is good for...a couple laughs , maybe...
KJV

United States

#86104 Apr 13, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>No, you have a book of myth written by bunch of bronze age sheep shaggers. Science is not based upon guesswork, it is based upon evidence.

Now we might not laugh at you so much if you had just a smidgeon evidence that supported your ridiculous claims.
Please at least insult using correct data.
First off it would be the Iron Age not Bronze Age.
Second sheep shaggers. Most were fisher men.
Third "Science is not based upon guesswork" science is based on guess work that they set out to prove.
Forth I have just as much proof as you do.

This is really subpar for you sub zombie.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#86105 Apr 13, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Please at least insult using correct data.
First off it would be the Iron Age not Bronze Age.
Second sheep shaggers. Most were fisher men.
Third "Science is not based upon guesswork" science is based on guess work that they set out to prove.
Forth I have just as much proof as you do.
This is really subpar for you sub zombie.
No...you have not one shred of evidence for your cult. not one.

in fact, there is tons of evidence [proving your cult to be based on lies.

your cult has the same relevance to the real world as a comic book.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#86106 Apr 13, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes, but if all life died, the earth would still be there, and life may again arise on it. the Earth is not aliving being. it harbors life, and it has living organisms on it and in it, but it is not alive.
Where again does this life come from, and can you point to any other place it comes from? It is alive , I'm sure of it.
Though I admit it may not be sentient. But since all life is in fact a part of Earth and cannot be considered separate , it means the biota of life is Earth itself. If you poison the Earth life dies, if you damage the Earth, life dies. I don't see how we can consider any part of life separate from Earth. I see its biosphere as a living thing that cannot be separated from it. Therefore it is alive with it's manifestation.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#86107 Apr 13, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Where again does this life come from, and can you point to any other place it comes from? It is alive , I'm sure of it.
Though I admit it may not be sentient. But since all life is in fact a part of Earth and cannot be considered separate , it means the biota of life is Earth itself. If you poison the Earth life dies, if you damage the Earth, life dies. I don't see how we can consider any part of life separate from Earth. I see its biosphere as a living thing that cannot be separated from it. Therefore it is alive with it's manifestation.
yes, they can be considered separate. I showed you an example. all life could die off on earth, and the Earth would still be there. and life could still rise again on the planet.

they are two separate things. the Earth is not a living entity. it harbors life on and in it.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#86108 Apr 13, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes, they can be considered separate. I showed you an example. all life could die off on earth, and the Earth would still be there. and life could still rise again on the planet.
they are two separate things. the Earth is not a living entity. it harbors life on and in it.
That might make sense if life was found anywhere else, but at this point the Earth is life. Why do you think it would come back?
If what you say were true, then life should be on Mars and Venus indeed everywhere.
The truth is you can't say why life is here or if Earth is alive or not. But as I said Earth is alive with it's manifestation.
The fact is also that life arose on Earth when it should have been impossible for it to have.

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
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 5 min Camilla 8,572
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 5 min TheJerseyDevil 165,636
God's getting Upset with US!!! 5 min Crystal_Clear722 57
News Doc Told Hundreds of Healthy People They Had Ca... 11 min Emerald 15
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 13 min Grace Nerissa 41,502
News Canadian Man Charged For "Balloon Chair" Flight... 14 min Alice 6
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 14 min Cyan in CA 18,980
Rebel vs American Flag 1 hr Fergerbilman 77
News Parents order a 'Frozen' Elsa birthday cake and... 2 hr Mullahing It Over 1
" Tell me a secret"...... (Oct '14) 2 hr CJ Rocker 372
More from around the web