Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221445 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

#89320 May 17, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text> You claim there is no God, but you quote one of his commandments...a touch of irony?(SHRUG)haha
Please provide the quote where I have claimed there is no God.

I'll give you a hint - you won't find it.

But thank you, that was a wonderful demonstration of your complete and total utter lack of observation skills.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89321 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can you never construct a coherent argument?
I have.

On numerous occasions.

You've never once addressed them.

And "Lalalala!" doesn't count.
HTS wrote:
I ask you for corroborating methodologies to validate C-14 dating
•Algal microfossil analysis (in paleolimnology)
•Amino acid racemization (L-to-D)(AAR)
•Argon40-argon39 chronometric
•Astronomical polarity time scale (APTS)
•Cation-ratio (CR)
•Chronostratigraphic (superposition, cross-cutting, intrusion)
•Coral reef annual layering
•Dendochronology (tree-ring)
•Deuterium-hydrogen stable isotope analysis
•Electron spin resonance (ESR)
•Fission track (U238-Pb206)
•Fluorine-uranium-nitrogen analysis (FUN)
•Fossil index (plant, animal, artifactual)
•Geomagnetic (archaeomagnetic/paleomagnetic ) reversal time scale (GTRS)
•Geomagnetic secular variation (around magnetic pole)
•Helium4-helium3
•Infrared-stimulated luminescence (IRSL)
•Isochron
•Isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS)
•Lichenometry (lichen/thalli colony radii)
•Lutetium176-hafnium176 geochronology
•Meteorite cosmic-ray exposure (Ne21, He3)
•Microfossil paleolimnochronology
•Milankovitch cycle astrochronology
•Mitochrondrial DNA
•Neon21-helium3 dating
•Obsidian hydration analysis (OHA)
•Ocean sediment core analysis
•Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL)
•Oxidizable carbon ratio (OCR)(C-total/C-oxidizable)
•Oxygen16-oxygen18 stable isotope analysis
•Paleosol chronology (in fossil soil stratigraphy)
•Patination (rock/desert varnish)
•Pigment remnant dating (in paleolimnology)
•Polar ice-sheet core
•Pollen/spore analysis (in palynology)
•Potassium40-argon40 chronometric
•Radiocarbon (14N-14C-N14/12C) by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS)
•Radioluminescence (RL)
•Radon222-lead210-lead206 chronometric
•Rhenium187-osmium187 chronometric
•Rubidium87-strontium87 chronometric
•Samarium147-neodymium143 chronometric
•Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS)
•Seriation/typological archaeochronology
•Strontium87-strontium86 chronometric
•Tephrochronology (of volcanic ash, tuff)
•Terrestrial rock cosmic-ray exposure
•Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry (TIMS)
•Thermoluminescence (TL)
•Thorium232-lead208 chronometric
•Uranium235-lead207 chronometric
•Uranium238-uranium234-thorium 230-radium226-lead206 (U-series)
•Varve analysis (of glacial-lake deposits)
•Writing (back 5000 years)
•Y-chromosome DNA

However none of these hold any bearing on your position because your position is "But what if all physics worked COMPLETELY DIFFERENT when we weren't looking???"

Hence the fact that all scientific dating techniques confirm the Earth and the universe are much older than 6,000 years do not address your argument in any form.

Unfortunately for your argument is not only completely lacking evidence but is not testable. Ergo it is not scientific.
HTS wrote:
and your only reply is "all of them", follwed by aimless rambling about how me being a "contrarian"
You put forth no coherent argument in the first place, so the simple statement of facts is all that's required until then.
HTS wrote:
because I don't accept evolution on faith as you do.
You and I are both aware that I do not accept evolution on faith nor need to. You are simply in here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89322 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You know nothing of my religion, and I'm not interested in debating religion as you are.
Of course we do. You're a typical YEC. The petty details are irrelevant. Catholic? Protestant? Mormon? Muslim? Jehova's Witness? Deist? Something else? Doesn't make a blind bit o' difference.(shrug)
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your bigoted statements only indicate that you are a religious zealot pretending to be interested in science.
Projection. Reality is bigoted towards anti-science. You are anti-science. That's all there is to it.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89323 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I won't debate my religion with you either, because you are also a religious bigot. Why do you pretend to know anything about my religion?
Walk like a duck, quack like a duck.

And boy, do you quack.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89325 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If someone publishes an article claimed to be "scientific", and references corroborating dating methods such as "sedimentation rates", he should document the premises upon which those methologogies are based and particular why they should be considered rock solid. The fact remains, ANY dating method of something purported be be 45,000 years old REQUIRES unprovable assumption, because no historically proven artifact of that age exists.
You're being very disingenuous here, one of the few times you're picking your words carefully. Fact is that just because humans weren't using scientific dating techniques back then doesn't mean that we can't demonstrate that something isn't 45,000 years old (or older).

But then even if humans were making historical records back then, why would that matter anyway? All you would do is say that it's less than 6,000 years old no matter what. Especially since you claim physics worked completely different back then which renders ANY kind of evidence irrelevant.

In short the only thing you have demonstrated is your assumption that reality is wrong if it's older than your arbitrarily picked date of 6,000 years. Which JUST SO HAPPENS to be the same date erroneously assumed by Ussher with his historically flawed chronology of the Abrahamic Jewish/Christian Bible.

Not that you wanna talk about your religious beliefs of course. Just in case we laugh at you.

As if we don't anyway.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89326 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I have never argued from religion. You are always bringing it up. You don't know what my views are on Adam and Eve, the worldwide flood, or the Bible.
You HAVE argued from a consistent anti-science YEC position. Goddidit with magic roughly 6-10,000 years ago. You were born in Western society. It is reasonable therefore to extrapolate that your views are HEAVILY influenced by fundamentalist religious dogma rooted in Abrahamic Judaism. And though it may be possible that you disagree with specific doctrines of the most well known popular churches that still does not negate your argument's roots.

Now, if you had been born a fundamentalist Hindu and never even HEARD of Christian creationism or their arguments THEN you would have been a lot more convincing.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89327 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>How do you know my religion has been "proven to be a myth" when you don't know what it is?
I thought you DarwinBots acknowledged that God cannot be falsified. Why, then, are you claiming that a religion has been "proven" to be a myth?
I will not debate my religion with blaspheming religious bigots.
Your religion is YECism. It is a myth, period.

You are only correct in that "God" cannot be falsified. This of course makes the concept non-scientific.

Your problem therefore is that you are arguing from a non-scientific position, which is WHY you are unable to directly address people's posts.

Hypocrisy of the highest order.

.

Also interesting that you have a problem with blasphemy... in science ALL things should be considered, yes?

Apparently not.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89328 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a consummate bigot, Woodtick.
YOu have assumed that I am a cultist, without even knowing what my religion is.
Just because I don't worship at the feet of Charles Darwin doesn't make me a "fundie".
No, the fact you worship at the big fat smelly feet of Total Ignorance is what makes you a fundie.(shrug)

Toejam for desert as usual, Harry?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89329 May 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Certain beliefs can be falsified. The concept of god as a whole cannot.
Of course it is possible to show that god cannot be omnipotent nor omniscient using basic logic. Of course even the Bible implies that. Why would Satan oppose God if he were omnipotent?
1 - He thinks he's got a shot.

2 - Satan isn't opposing God, but an integral part of God's plans.

After all the arrangement that all sinners go to Satan seems pretty amicable, doesn't it?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89330 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>My religion is (or at least should be)irrelevant to this discussion.
Don't worry your little head about it. It is.

Always has been.(shrug)
HTS

Mandan, ND

#89331 May 17, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right in one regard, I WAS mistaken about Dr. Wiens having DOCUMENTATION on his site regarding the accuracy of C14 dating techniques. He goes into detail in DESCRIBING the technique, and the different methods of calibrating C14 dating (pages 13' & '14' of the article). http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html
He DOES reference some graphs that further illustrate C14 dating accuracy -- and those graphs ARE documented ("Tree-ring data are from Stuiver et al.,
Radiocarbon 40, 1041-1083, 1998; stalactite data are from Beck et al., Science 292, 2453-2458, 2001."). There are other links at the bottom of the article where you could have gone to get additional information on C14 dating, but hey...
But I was mistaken in that I thought I remembered from earlier readings of the Wiens paper that he DID have ALL the required documentation for his explanation(s),-- he did not (but he DID have some). But let's say that this is moot, and there was NO further refererence from THAT ONE SITE to back up the accuracy of C14 dating data.
Many reputable science sites can clarify any questions you might have regarding the range, calibration and accuracy of C14 dating methods. It's not difficult to locate on your own and acutally LEARN something about that which you're attempting to argue against.(note: AIG and Discovery.org are the NOT "reputable science sites").
Oh, and btw, were I really "scraping the bottom of the barrel", you would still have me to look up to, "Doctor".
When C-14 dating was first introduced, Willard Libby correctly dated the wood from a royal Egptian barge, the age of which was known from historical documents. No such artifact with a proven age of 45,000 years is available. Any calibration curve extending to that distant of a past by definition must rely on unprovable assumptions, regardless of whatever dating method it is corroborated with. Scientific analysis is founded on more than a hypothesis. It must be PROVEN that a methodology is accurate. You have no such proof.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89332 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You have not falsified God.
And you have not falsified the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Note that the falsification of "God" is not even necessary.

We HAVE falsified YECism though.

That is of course until "God" comes along to rescue it, placing it back into the non-falsifiable category. And so the tautology continues in its vicious cycle.

Obviously this logical quandary is what Mikey must mean when he keeps talking about Systems, Cycles, and Patterns.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89333 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
Who cares?(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89334 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Disagreement with popular dogma does not make someone "anti-science".
And if you were disagreeing with the ideal that Empire is the best Star Wars film of all time you would not be referred to as being anti-science. Just spectacularly lacking in good taste.

No, it's your disagreement with scientifically demonstrable reality which makes you anti-science.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#89335 May 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I have.

<quoted text>
•Algal microfossil analysis (in paleolimnology)
•Amino acid racemization (L-to-D)(AAR)
•Argon40-argon39 chronometric
•Astronomical polarity time scale (APTS)
•Cation-ratio (CR)
•Chronostratigraphic (superposition, cross-cutting, intrusion)
•Coral reef annual layering
•Dendochronology (tree-ring)
•Deuterium-hydrogen stable isotope analysis
•Electron spin resonance (ESR)
•Fission track (U238-Pb206)
•Fluorine-uranium-nitrogen analysis (FUN)
•Fossil index (plant, animal, artifactual)
•Geomagnetic (archaeomagnetic/paleomagnetic ) reversal time scale (GTRS)
•Geomagnetic secular variation (around magnetic pole)
•Helium4-helium3
•Infrared-stimulated luminescence (IRSL)
•Isochron
•Isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS)
•Lichenometry (lichen/thalli colony radii)
•Lutetium176-hafnium176 geochronology
•Meteorite cosmic-ray exposure (Ne21, He3)
•Microfossil paleolimnochronology
•Milankovitch cycle astrochronology
•Mitochrondrial DNA
•Neon21-helium3 dating
•Obsidian hydration analysis (OHA)
•Ocean sediment core analysis
•Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL)
•Oxidizable carbon ratio (OCR)(C-total/C-oxidizable)
•Oxygen16-oxygen18 stable isotope analysis
•Paleosol chronology (in fossil soil stratigraphy)
•Patination (rock/desert varnish)
•Pigment remnant dating (in paleolimnology)
•Polar ice-sheet core
•Pollen/spore analysis (in palynology)
•Potassium40-argon40 chronometric
•Radiocarbon (14N-14C-N14/12C) by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS)
•Radioluminescence (RL)
•Radon222-lead210-lead206 chronometric
•Rhenium187-osmium187 chronometric
•Rubidium87-strontium87 chronometric
•Samarium147-neodymium143 chronometric
•Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS)
•Seriation/typological archaeochronology
•Strontium87-strontium86 chronometric
•Tephrochronology (of volcanic ash, tuff)
•Terrestrial rock cosmic-ray exposure
•Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry (TIMS)
•Thermoluminescence (TL)
•Thorium232-lead208 chronometric
•Uranium235-lead207 chronometric
•Uranium238-uranium234-thorium 230-radium226-lead206 (U-series)
•Varve analysis (of glacial-lake deposits)
•Writing (back 5000 years)
•Y-chromosome DNA
.jpg
Explain to me how Rubidium87-strontium87 chronometric corroborates C-14 dating...
You presented it as evidence.
Let's hear your justification.
Wake Up

Louisville, KY

#89336 May 17, 2013
God's existence can not be proven to the unbeliever. Gods existence is proven only by believing. You either have faith and believe in him or you don't. It is not that difficult. If you are seeking for proof..you will not find it unless, by faith, you believe. So for all you atheist who continue to search for valid evidence from believers...and go back and forth with endless battles of who's right and wrong and what science says about the matter...and all your little scientific rants & theories and anecdotes, there is not one person on this earth that can satisfy your request for proof of God's existence. Your search in in vain.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89337 May 17, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
Oh, and btw, were I really "scraping the bottom of the barrel", you would still have me to look up to, "Doctor".
Indeedy. He chokes every time he tries.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89338 May 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>disagreement with proven scientific facts does...
Now if you have some actual facts to counter the verifiable facts of the science you claim to debunk, it would be nice ot hear them...
He has "Reality isn't real cuz how do YOU know? Where you THERE?!? Then what about this made up fundie claim? What about that one? And this one? And that one? No I won't admit to any mistakes or deal with a SINGLE thing you guys have posted! BOO HOO, YOU GUYS ARE MEAN TO ME!!!"

That's pretty much it.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#89339 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
When C-14 dating was first introduced, Willard Libby correctly dated the wood from a royal Egptian barge, the age of which was known from historical documents. No such artifact with a proven age of 45,000 years is available. Any calibration curve extending to that distant of a past by definition must rely on unprovable assumptions, regardless of whatever dating method it is corroborated with. Scientific analysis is founded on more than a hypothesis. It must be PROVEN that a methodology is accurate. You have no such proof.
yes, we do have proven artifacts of that age. just because you do not accept the proven, reproduceable evidence of such does not mean we do not have it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#89340 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
When C-14 dating was first introduced, Willard Libby correctly dated the wood from a royal Egptian barge, the age of which was known from historical documents. No such artifact with a proven age of 45,000 years is available. Any calibration curve extending to that distant of a past by definition must rely on unprovable assumptions, regardless of whatever dating method it is corroborated with. Scientific analysis is founded on more than a hypothesis. It must be PROVEN that a methodology is accurate. You have no such proof.
Wrong, as has been pointed out the calibration curves have been taken back to 45,000 years ago by using various different means.

You are the one who is claiming that there are "unprovable assumptions" yet you refuse to tell us what any of these supposed assumptions are.

It looks like you are copying and pasting from an unknown YEC source who did not have an answer either.

You keep forgetting that all YEC sources lie at some point or another and they always get caught. It looks like your source is lying about "unprovable assumptions".

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
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 3 min andet1987 7,873
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 5 min Denny CranesPlace 21,900
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 13 min Important Weekend 75,289
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 14 min SweLL GirL 16,688
A to Z songs by title or group! 20 min Camilla 1,813
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) (Dec '14) 47 min andet1987 5,385
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 48 min Rider on the Storm 217,213
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 48 min T Bone 4,086
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 9 hr Emerald 17,211
More from around the web