Evolution vs. Creation

There are 163688 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#87643 Apr 25, 2013
sd_mi_70 wrote:
Where did the original matter and energy come from. Evolutionists say it was always there.
Very hard to take you seriously when you say something like this. Completely wrong, of course. Evolution make no pronouncements on the origin of matter and energy. That would be the physicists. Duh.

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#87644 Apr 25, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes, but the one group denying global warming are not very credible scientists, and they are trying to argue with a thermometer, which is an argument you can't win...
in this topic that, that is how the science has been done, look at all possibilities and eliminate the ones with no evidence, like some god doing the creating...
So where did the Earth come from? Can you prove that? Also these non-credible scientists have all had works published and the Global Warming scientists have been shown that they skew their results to favor policy change at the UN. For every credible scientist that claims to have Global Warming pinned down another shows that this theory is wrong. There are hundreds of sites that contradict each other and each using the exact same data. There is no thermometer that proves climate change.

The EPA and NASA have been shown that they adjust their numbers each year based on new found evidence. What others found is that the numbers look at rural and densely populated areas and instead of averaging the 2 which is what should happen, these organizations have been shown to adjust the rural temps up to match the densely populated areas where concrete, steel and other man made object collect and store heat. If you look at water you will find that at the bottom it is warmer than the middle and the surface is different than both of those. So the average temp of the water must be the true temp or should we adjust all of them to fit the theory we are trying to force on everyone?

The evidence that God created things is right there in front of you. We speak, and some of us multiple languages. How many languages can a primate learn? Think a gorilla learns to speak spider monkey or knows chimpanzee? Man was created by God in my opinion. Science can't disprove that as of yet as science still cannot prove where or even when the Earth was created. Take the Grand Canyon. How was the Grand Canyon created? My guess is that you believe what they tried to teach us in school and that a river cut through it over the years. Some scientists went and looked and found that the landscape of the edges would suggest that in order for the water to cut through the land it would have to have flowed upwards. Water simply would not have done that and it would have went around. It is more likely that the land was flooded and that when the water receded, like we see with mud puddles, and the land dried that it cracked in a weakened area.

So no, science has yet to prove that God does not exist. Occams Razor says that all things being equal the simplest answer tends to be the right one. So the 2 answers we have is that an omnipotent being created what we have, or that the perfect storm of dust and primordial ooze came together and formed our planet and that after millions of years we were the result. I tend to believe in God at that point.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#87645 Apr 25, 2013
sd_mi_70 wrote:
<quoted text>
And for most Science you have to take things on FAITH. Look at the current debate on Climate Change. In the 1980's the world was going to come to an Ice Age and Now we are going to burn to death. One group of Scientists say Global Warming Exists using said data and another group using the same exact data says it is false. So even in the name of Science which is supposed to be a singular Religion not everyone agrees. There is no need to be cynical because someone believes in something you don't, won't, or can't comprehend.
Faith gives the majority of the world (cause the majority claim to believe in some form of higher power/being) a sense of belonging and peace. So let's discuss this issue rather than assault or ridicule someone because they don't buy what you are selling.
Arguing is not discussing. Name calling belittles the discussion. This is exactly why nothing gets done and this discussion delves into an argument. State facts, ideas, theories, and let others post theirs without assuming they're wrong just because they are on the other side.
I am Christian, so I grant you that there is a possibility that God may not exist because the human mind can be manipulated. I don't believe that one bit as I am certain God exists. As a non-believer can you honestly admit that there is a possibility that God exists? Because if you cannot then how can you discover the truth? Any good science experiment has to start off with all answers are possible to include the ones we don't want to have hear. Then through experiments and further data collection we begin to find the right answers. But if you are biased to the experiment that only one possible outcome exists from the beginning then you have ruined the experiment and the results will be false, even if you are right, because you failed to include true testing for the other possibilities.
Please again I encourage you all to keep your discussion based on facts and less name calling and ridicule. Just my .02
Wow. A science experiment does NOT start off with all the answers. That *would* be bias. It starts with a question and answers are searched for.

And, yes, as a non-believer I can honestly admit that there is a possibility that God exists. I just have no indication that he/she/it does.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#87646 Apr 25, 2013
sd_mi_70 wrote:
<quoted text>
And for most Science you have to take things on FAITH. Look at the current debate on Climate Change. In the 1980's the world was going to come to an Ice Age and Now we are going to burn to death. One group of Scientists say Global Warming Exists using said data and another group using the same exact data says it is false. So even in the name of Science which is supposed to be a singular Religion not everyone agrees. There is no need to be cynical because someone believes in something you don't, won't, or can't comprehend.
Faith gives the majority of the world (cause the majority claim to believe in some form of higher power/being) a sense of belonging and peace. So let's discuss this issue rather than assault or ridicule someone because they don't buy what you are selling.
Arguing is not discussing. Name calling belittles the discussion. This is exactly why nothing gets done and this discussion delves into an argument. State facts, ideas, theories, and let others post theirs without assuming they're wrong just because they are on the other side.
I am Christian, so I grant you that there is a possibility that God may not exist because the human mind can be manipulated. I don't believe that one bit as I am certain God exists. As a non-believer can you honestly admit that there is a possibility that God exists? Because if you cannot then how can you discover the truth? Any good science experiment has to start off with all answers are possible to include the ones we don't want to have hear. Then through experiments and further data collection we begin to find the right answers. But if you are biased to the experiment that only one possible outcome exists from the beginning then you have ruined the experiment and the results will be false, even if you are right, because you failed to include true testing for the other possibilities.
Please again I encourage you all to keep your discussion based on facts and less name calling and ridicule. Just my .02
Sorry, but ridicule is what most of the creationist deserve for trying to argue against a science they have absolutely no clue about. They use a description of 'evolution' that bears no resemblance to what the science actually says. They then commence to beating up their version because trying to argue against the actual theory would require them to actually learn it. Doing THAT would show them how stupid their posts are. When you start an "argument", and clearly show that you have no clue about the topic you're arguing against, expect to be ridiculed! In this day and age, with access to information available at your finger tips, there is NO excuse for being completely ignorant of a subject.

Do you know what the difference is between the 'free thinkers' and the 'religious' in a debate between 'religion and science'? The 'free thinkers' know BOTH sides of the debate and the 'religious' barely know their own!

The only "fact" that can be used when discussing religion is that many people believe in a god for which no evidence has ever been presented. THAT is the reason that your are told that 'faith' is a requirement. If there actually was evidence for your 'god'(or for any other 'god' for that matter) there would be no need for faith because it would be accepted based on the evidence. Starting with a premise that requires 'faith','god' exists, and then claiming anything derived from that premise as fact is pretty silly don't you think? There is no need for 'faith' in science because science relies on facts. When you have facts on your side, the need for faith vanishes. There is no 'truth' in 'faith'

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#87647 Apr 25, 2013
sd_mi_70 wrote:
<quoted text>
So where did the Earth come from? Can you prove that? Also these non-credible scientists have all had works published and the Global Warming scientists have been shown that they skew their results to favor policy change at the UN. For every credible scientist that claims to have Global Warming pinned down another shows that this theory is wrong. There are hundreds of sites that contradict each other and each using the exact same data. There is no thermometer that proves climate change.
The EPA and NASA have been shown that they adjust their numbers each year based on new found evidence. What others found is that the numbers look at rural and densely populated areas and instead of averaging the 2 which is what should happen, these organizations have been shown to adjust the rural temps up to match the densely populated areas where concrete, steel and other man made object collect and store heat. If you look at water you will find that at the bottom it is warmer than the middle and the surface is different than both of those. So the average temp of the water must be the true temp or should we adjust all of them to fit the theory we are trying to force on everyone?
The evidence that God created things is right there in front of you. We speak, and some of us multiple languages. How many languages can a primate learn? Think a gorilla learns to speak spider monkey or knows chimpanzee? Man was created by God in my opinion. Science can't disprove that as of yet as science still cannot prove where or even when the Earth was created. Take the Grand Canyon. How was the Grand Canyon created? My guess is that you believe what they tried to teach us in school and that a river cut through it over the years. Some scientists went and looked and found that the landscape of the edges would suggest that in order for the water to cut through the land it would have to have flowed upwards. Water simply would not have done that and it would have went around. It is more likely that the land was flooded and that when the water receded, like we see with mud puddles, and the land dried that it cracked in a weakened area.
So no, science has yet to prove that God does not exist. Occams Razor says that all things being equal the simplest answer tends to be the right one. So the 2 answers we have is that an omnipotent being created what we have, or that the perfect storm of dust and primordial ooze came together and formed our planet and that after millions of years we were the result. I tend to believe in God at that point.
Answers in Genesis? Creation.com ?

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#87648 Apr 25, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Answers in Genesis? Creation.com ?
All the answers I have found to be right are my copy of King James bible. So far there is nothing in there that science has dis-proven.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#87649 Apr 25, 2013
sd_mi_70 wrote:
<quoted text>
So where did the Earth come from? Can you prove that? Also these non-credible scientists have all had works published and the Global Warming scientists have been shown that they skew their results to favor policy change at the UN. For every credible scientist that claims to have Global Warming pinned down another shows that this theory is wrong. There are hundreds of sites that contradict each other and each using the exact same data. There is no thermometer that proves climate change.
The EPA and NASA have been shown that they adjust their numbers each year based on new found evidence. What others found is that the numbers look at rural and densely populated areas and instead of averaging the 2 which is what should happen, these organizations have been shown to adjust the rural temps up to match the densely populated areas where concrete, steel and other man made object collect and store heat. If you look at water you will find that at the bottom it is warmer than the middle and the surface is different than both of those. So the average temp of the water must be the true temp or should we adjust all of them to fit the theory we are trying to force on everyone?
The evidence that God created things is right there in front of you. We speak, and some of us multiple languages. How many languages can a primate learn? Think a gorilla learns to speak spider monkey or knows chimpanzee? Man was created by God in my opinion. Science can't disprove that as of yet as science still cannot prove where or even when the Earth was created. Take the Grand Canyon. How was the Grand Canyon created? My guess is that you believe what they tried to teach us in school and that a river cut through it over the years. Some scientists went and looked and found that the landscape of the edges would suggest that in order for the water to cut through the land it would have to have flowed upwards. Water simply would not have done that and it would have went around. It is more likely that the land was flooded and that when the water receded, like we see with mud puddles, and the land dried that it cracked in a weakened area.
So no, science has yet to prove that God does not exist. Occams Razor says that all things being equal the simplest answer tends to be the right one. So the 2 answers we have is that an omnipotent being created what we have, or that the perfect storm of dust and primordial ooze came together and formed our planet and that after millions of years we were the result. I tend to believe in God at that point.
People have been telling you tales.

Scientists have not been adjusting their data to prove global warming.

We know where the Earth came from.

There is no evidence for a global flood.

And yes, evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is more evidence for evolution than there has been for any murder trial ever, including the various Nurmeberg trials.

Creationists as a whole are ignorant idiots. We are more than willing to help you to learn.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#87650 Apr 25, 2013
sd_mi_70 wrote:
<quoted text>
So where did the Earth come from? Can you prove that? Also these non-credible scientists have all had works published and the Global Warming scientists have been shown that they skew their results to favor policy change at the UN. For every credible scientist that claims to have Global Warming pinned down another shows that this theory is wrong. There are hundreds of sites that contradict each other and each using the exact same data. There is no thermometer that proves climate change.
The EPA and NASA have been shown that they adjust their numbers each year based on new found evidence. What others found is that the numbers look at rural and densely populated areas and instead of averaging the 2 which is what should happen, these organizations have been shown to adjust the rural temps up to match the densely populated areas where concrete, steel and other man made object collect and store heat. If you look at water you will find that at the bottom it is warmer than the middle and the surface is different than both of those. So the average temp of the water must be the true temp or should we adjust all of them to fit the theory we are trying to force on everyone?
The evidence that God created things is right there in front of you. We speak, and some of us multiple languages. How many languages can a primate learn? Think a gorilla learns to speak spider monkey or knows chimpanzee? Man was created by God in my opinion. Science can't disprove that as of yet as science still cannot prove where or even when the Earth was created. Take the Grand Canyon. How was the Grand Canyon created? My guess is that you believe what they tried to teach us in school and that a river cut through it over the years. Some scientists went and looked and found that the landscape of the edges would suggest that in order for the water to cut through the land it would have to have flowed upwards. Water simply would not have done that and it would have went around. It is more likely that the land was flooded and that when the water receded, like we see with mud puddles, and the land dried that it cracked in a weakened area.
So no, science has yet to prove that God does not exist. Occams Razor says that all things being equal the simplest answer tends to be the right one. So the 2 answers we have is that an omnipotent being created what we have, or that the perfect storm of dust and primordial ooze came together and formed our planet and that after millions of years we were the result. I tend to believe in God at that point.
very few scientists fudged data. like three or four of them.

yes the thermometers show a clear warming. you talk about facts and science yet you are arguing with raw data...

i think that says it all.

occams's razor would go with the science view of the universe creation as there is not one shred of evidence for any god, gods or goddesses. so that isn't even one of the options...

you almost talk a good game, but you really say nothing about logic or science, you just give them lip service and then skew the facts to a god that has absolutely no evidence.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#87651 Apr 25, 2013
sd_mi_70 wrote:
<quoted text>
All the answers I have found to be right are my copy of King James bible. So far there is nothing in there that science has dis-proven.
a

Noah's Ark was disproven long long ago.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#87652 Apr 25, 2013
and the Earth was not created with plants on it before the sun was created.

the moon was not created at the same time as the sun.

it did, in fact, rain before the time of noah, or any human for that matter.

yes, science has disproven so much in the bible that it can no longer be disputed that your god is a myth, created by man.

your cult lied to you...again...

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#87653 Apr 25, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>a
Noah's Ark was disproven long long ago.
According to the Huffington Post there is still a search going on for the Ark. Is has never been disproven. Robert Ballard, the guy who found the Titanic and the Bismark, is still in search of the biblical ship. He says he is not convinced either way and that is why he is in search of the great flood. He is returning this summer to Turkey to do more research and discovery. So what evidence are you speaking of that disproved it?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#87654 Apr 25, 2013
sd_mi_70 wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the Huffington Post there is still a search going on for the Ark. Is has never been disproven. Robert Ballard, the guy who found the Titanic and the Bismark, is still in search of the biblical ship. He says he is not convinced either way and that is why he is in search of the great flood. He is returning this summer to Turkey to do more research and discovery. So what evidence are you speaking of that disproved it?
no, Ballard is looking for civilizations on the black sea that would have interpreted the flooding of that area when the bosporous broke open as a world-wide flood.

yes, the noachian flood is disproven. it didn't happen in the time of humans or even within the time frame of geological record, which is millions and millions of years

your cult lied to you...again...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#87655 Apr 25, 2013
sd_mi_70 wrote:
<quoted text>
All the answers I have found to be right are my copy of King James bible. So far there is nothing in there that science has dis-proven.
Maybe you should also read some science then. Or have you decided you have all the answers before you began the experiment.

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#87656 Apr 25, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
and the Earth was not created with plants on it before the sun was created.
the moon was not created at the same time as the sun.
it did, in fact, rain before the time of noah, or any human for that matter.
yes, science has disproven so much in the bible that it can no longer be disputed that your god is a myth, created by man.
your cult lied to you...again...
Where is your proof? what did plant life start out as then? Where did the dust that the Earth was created from come from? Where is the link between man and primate? There are similarities but no actual proof. So when was the moon created if it wasn't created the same time as the sun? Anyone able to take a core sample of the moon and the sun to try and carbon date them? The bible said God created the heavens and the earth, he said let there be light. Then he created animals and then man. So according to your science the bible follows the plan. What kind of argument are you trying to make with the following statement?

"it did, in fact, rain before the time of noah, or any human for that matter"

Just because it rained last year doesn't mean that it won't rain more next year. Not able to follow you on that one.

An saying the word cult make you feel better? What exactly did that add to the discussion? Because someone has an opinion different than yours you regress into name calling and insults which makes your argument less valid. I will not call you names or make fun of you or your beliefs so don't do the same to me.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#87657 Apr 25, 2013
sd_mi_70 wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the Huffington Post there is still a search going on for the Ark. Is has never been disproven. Robert Ballard, the guy who found the Titanic and the Bismark, is still in search of the biblical ship. He says he is not convinced either way and that is why he is in search of the great flood. He is returning this summer to Turkey to do more research and discovery. So what evidence are you speaking of that disproved it?
Actually, the search Ballard is doing in the black sea is fascinating. he is follwing and proving the theory of his mentor that ancient wooden ships would be preserved in the depths of the black sea do to its toxic, anaerobic lower layers of water.

in his first trip there he did find one ship just as they had to leave. he actually diverted some of his time documenting a site of habitation submerged on the ancient shoreline.

fascinating stuff. but not the search for noah's ark.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#87658 Apr 25, 2013
sd_mi_70 wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the Huffington Post there is still a search going on for the Ark. Is has never been disproven. Robert Ballard, the guy who found the Titanic and the Bismark, is still in search of the biblical ship. He says he is not convinced either way and that is why he is in search of the great flood. He is returning this summer to Turkey to do more research and discovery. So what evidence are you speaking of that disproved it?
The evidence is insurmountable.

For one thing, there are numerous places that has not seen water in any form (precipitation or by flood) in millions of years. Portions of the Atacama Desert, and Antarctica, for example.

Secondly, there is overwhelming evidence that every corner of the earth (except Antarctica) was populated with human beings by about 15000 years ago, or perhaps earlier. Most of these cultures existed and thrived right through the period of your "global flood" without so much as getting their sandals/moccasins moist.

...and there is much more.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#87659 Apr 25, 2013
sd_mi_70 wrote:
<quoted text>
All the answers I have found to be right are my copy of King James bible. So far there is nothing in there that science has dis-proven.
Perhaps you should go to the public library and read a few science books. You will find ..... never mind. Your mind is already closed shut.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#87660 Apr 25, 2013
sd_mi_70 wrote:
Anyone able to take a core sample of the moon and the sun to try and carbon date them?
As I said, read some science. It's obvious that you know next to nothing about it.

Carbon date core samples of the moon and sun. Hysterical.
sd_mi_70 wrote:
So according to your science the bible follows the plan.
Nope. Genesis is incorrect.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#87661 Apr 25, 2013
sd_mi_70 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is your proof? what did plant life start out as then? Where did the dust that the Earth was created from come from? Where is the link between man and primate? There are similarities but no actual proof. So when was the moon created if it wasn't created the same time as the sun? Anyone able to take a core sample of the moon and the sun to try and carbon date them? The bible said God created the heavens and the earth, he said let there be light. Then he created animals and then man. So according to your science the bible follows the plan. What kind of argument are you trying to make with the following statement?
"it did, in fact, rain before the time of noah, or any human for that matter"
Just because it rained last year doesn't mean that it won't rain more next year. Not able to follow you on that one.
An saying the word cult make you feel better? What exactly did that add to the discussion? Because someone has an opinion different than yours you regress into name calling and insults which makes your argument less valid. I will not call you names or make fun of you or your beliefs so don't do the same to me.
the link between man and primate? all the in-between fossils we have. have you been living under a rock or in a cult?

the bible says it did not rain before noah's flood. don't you even know your own cult?

your ignorance on this issue is stunning!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#87662 Apr 25, 2013
sd_mi_70 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is your proof? what did plant life start out as then? Where did the dust that the Earth was created from come from? Where is the link between man and primate? There are similarities but no actual proof. So when was the moon created if it wasn't created the same time as the sun? Anyone able to take a core sample of the moon and the sun to try and carbon date them? The bible said God created the heavens and the earth, he said let there be light. Then he created animals and then man. So according to your science the bible follows the plan. What kind of argument are you trying to make with the following statement?
"it did, in fact, rain before the time of noah, or any human for that matter"
Just because it rained last year doesn't mean that it won't rain more next year. Not able to follow you on that one.
An saying the word cult make you feel better? What exactly did that add to the discussion? Because someone has an opinion different than yours you regress into name calling and insults which makes your argument less valid. I will not call you names or make fun of you or your beliefs so don't do the same to me.
are you saying plant life can live with no sunlight? really? and you say you look at things scientifically? what a joke. go back to your KJV...

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
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 6 min beatlesinafog 11,353
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 17 min Parden Pard 558
Update on Daesh 19 min Hoosier Hillbilly 1
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 28 min beatlesinafog 56,840
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 33 min beatlesinafog 5,713
Add a Word, Ruin a Movie (Oct '13) 35 min Parden Pard 5,099
News Ex-Catholic teacher pleads guilty to sex with s... 36 min Meanie 5
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 43 min TALLYHO 8541 40,628
News Driver Clocked at 153MPH in Dodge Wagon 48 min Parden Pard 6
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr I Am No One_ 162,729
motorcycle traveling stories 3 hr TALLYHO 8541 760
More from around the web