Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216897 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.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#93418 Jun 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So far, leprechauns have just as much supporting evidence that your god does. Shouldn't you be looking for evidence supporting your god?
Projection and straw man fallacy!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#93419 Jun 19, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Projection and straw man fallacy!
Um, what? Do you even know what words you are typing? Show where the straw man is in my post. Also show how that post was a projection.

Here's the itemized version:

1. Leprechauns have no evidence supporting them, therefore we conclude that they are a myth.

2. Your god has no evidence supporting it, therefore we conclude that it is a myth.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#93420 Jun 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, what? Do you even know what words you are typing? Show where the straw man is in my post. Also show how that post was a projection.
Here's the itemized version:
1. Leprechauns have no evidence supporting them, therefore we conclude that they are a myth.
2. Your god has no evidence supporting it, therefore we conclude that it is a myth.
I was talking about you looking for leprechauns and you changed it to me showing prove of God? That is straw man fallacy. See definition below.

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#93421 Jun 19, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I was talking about you looking for leprechauns and you changed it to me showing prove of God? That is straw man fallacy. See definition below.
To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition.
What I posted was not a straw man, it was an example followed by the parallel. You claim there is a god, yet provide no evidence, why should we believe you and not those who claim there are leprechauns?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#93422 Jun 19, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I was talking about you looking for leprechauns and you changed it to me showing prove of God? That is straw man fallacy. See definition below.
To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition.
You have yet to show there is any difference between your god and her leprechauns. Until you do it is not a strawman fallacy.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#93423 Jun 20, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You have yet to show there is any difference between your god and her leprechauns. Until you do it is not a strawman fallacy.
Are you that stupid. She took out the leprechaun and inserted I show proof of God.

Do you even know what unequivalent proposition means? It means you insert something in place of the subject with equal value whether positive or negative. You change the subject with to another with out giving a real answer. Hell you would think as much as you all scream that, that you would know what it means. LMMFAO

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#93424 Jun 20, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you that stupid. She took out the leprechaun and inserted I show proof of God.
Do you even know what unequivalent proposition means? It means you insert something in place of the subject with equal value whether positive or negative. You change the subject with to another with out giving a real answer. Hell you would think as much as you all scream that, that you would know what it means. LMMFAO
From your own definition the two objects have to be of unequivalent value. If you want to claim that they are unequivalent you have to show that they are unequivalent.

Let's see, a leprechaun is a mythical being. There, I even did half of your work for you.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#93425 Jun 20, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
From your own definition the two objects have to be of unequivalent value. If you want to claim that they are unequivalent you have to show that they are unequivalent.
Let's see, a leprechaun is a mythical being. There, I even did half of your work for you.
WOW you are stupid. Unequivalent means equal in value. You say leprechaun are a mth and you say God is a myth. What does that make them to you,,,,, yes that would be equal in value. LMFAO Go learn something idiot.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#93426 Jun 20, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you that stupid. She took out the leprechaun and inserted I show proof of God.
Do you even know what unequivalent proposition means? It means you insert something in place of the subject with equal value whether positive or negative. You change the subject with to another with out giving a real answer. Hell you would think as much as you all scream that, that you would know what it means. LMMFAO
Um, you have admitted to being nothing but a troll, this is why when you are demonstrated to be wrong you change the subject every time, you don't care about facts.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#93427 Jun 20, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW you are stupid. Unequivalent means equal in value. You say leprechaun are a mth and you say God is a myth. What does that make them to you,,,,, yes that would be equal in value. LMFAO Go learn something idiot.
A leprechaun is the same as a god now, neither have evidence, they are on the same level.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#93428 Jun 20, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW you are stupid. Unequivalent means equal in value. You say leprechaun are a mth and you say God is a myth. What does that make them to you,,,,, yes that would be equal in value. LMFAO Go learn something idiot.
Wrong idiot, "unequivalent" means not equal. See it has the prefix "un" that means not.

And yes, it seems that both leprechauns and gods are myths. We would love it if you had some evidence to the contrary.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#93429 Jun 20, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
The point I'm discussing with them has no facts but they believe it does.
As in.
Their 3 BIG Myths:
1) the Big Bang when nothing exploded
and created everything.
Lets start with that. Myth?

The Big Bang arose as a potential explanation for an observation - the Red Shift by Hubble in the 1920s. However, on this alone the idea was not taken too seriously by scientists. For example at the time, Einstein rejected it, though there was no other serious explanation for the red shift effect. It was just one anomaly, and could not justify a revolutionary cosmology alone.

Forty years later, another effect was noticed. Big Bang had predicted a cosmic background microwave radiation that should permeate space. By accident, it was discovered in the 1960s. Now the Big Bang was taken seriously, as like a good scientific theory it had made a testable prediction which was confirmed.

Since then, multiple additional lines of evidence have emerged that support the Big Bang. Perhaps you could look them up in Wiki or something, instead of making asinine comments about "myths".

Scientists, who go where the physical evidence takes them, not some ancient scripture, generally support the Big Bang. Its the best explanation we have for the evidence we have. And that is the ONLY reason they support it.

That is not a myth. Its how science works.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#93430 Jun 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
A leprechaun is the same as a god now, neither have evidence, they are on the same level.
Which means what???? Yes that would be Unequivalent in equal value. meaning one means no more than the other. LMAO

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#93431 Jun 20, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong idiot, "unequivalent" means not equal. See it has the prefix "un" that means not.
And yes, it seems that both leprechauns and gods are myths. We would love it if you had some evidence to the contrary.
WOW you really do need to read a little. It means they mean the same. ROTFLMMFAO

e·quiv·a·lent - adjective

1. equal in value, measure, force, effect, significance, etc.: His silence is equivalent to an admission of guilt.

2. corresponding in position, function, etc.: In some ways their prime minister is equivalent to our president.

3. Geometry . having the same extent, as a triangle and a square of equal area.

4. Mathematics .(of two sets) able to be placed in one-to-one correspondence.

5. Chemistry . having the same capacity to combine or react chemically.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unequi...
You keep on proving you are a fool.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#93432 Jun 20, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Which means what???? Yes that would be Unequivalent in equal value. meaning one means no more than the other. LMAO
Um, "unequivalent" is not a real word.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#93433 Jun 20, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW you really do need to read a little. It means they mean the same. ROTFLMMFAO
e·quiv·a·lent - adjective
1. equal in value, measure, force, effect, significance, etc.: His silence is equivalent to an admission of guilt.
2. corresponding in position, function, etc.: In some ways their prime minister is equivalent to our president.
3. Geometry . having the same extent, as a triangle and a square of equal area.
4. Mathematics .(of two sets) able to be placed in one-to-one correspondence.
5. Chemistry . having the same capacity to combine or react chemically.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unequi...
You keep on proving you are a fool.
"Unequivalent" is not a real word.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#93434 Jun 20, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you that stupid. She took out the leprechaun and inserted I show proof of God.
Do you even know what unequivalent proposition means? It means you insert something in place of the subject with equal value whether positive or negative. You change the subject with to another with out giving a real answer. Hell you would think as much as you all scream that, that you would know what it means. LMMFAO
OK, lets look at fair equivalents.

These all have creation mythologies:

Hinduism
Christianity
Islam
Buddhism
Maori mythology
Viking Mythology

They have a creation story. Most but not all involve God or Gods. Most have some magical and supernatural elements to them. But based on what is observable, none of them quite stack up to what the universe is telling us.

Humans can make up stories and fake books. Even unintentionally.

However, the evidence cannot so easily be faked. Scientist are continually looking for error or fraud in any scientific paper presented. Assumptions must be shown. Data must be shown. Conclusions must be logical based on the data. Any failure on these points will be discovered sooner or later, either in the peer review process, or later, by other researchers trying to repeat the same research. Unlike "Prophets" and "Seers", anybody is allowed to rip a scientist's conclusions to shreds if he has the counter evidence to do so. Its not perfect, but it works.

What do the religious myths have in common? Some guy is supposed to have received Higher Wisdom that followers cannot question. If Moses, or L. Ron Hubbard wrote that, its TRUE. How do we know? Cos they told us!

There may be a God, or may not be, but for sure all these ancient myths about the real nature of God are a load of cobblers. If there is a God, He put a universe there for us to explore with the eyes and brains He also gave us. Do you really believe in a God that would give us these things and expect us to remain ignorant of the evidence He put in the fabric of the universe? We can fake mythical books, but we cannot fake that.

And if there is no God, our eyes and brains are still the only tools we have. Either way, its our best shot at the truth.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#93435 Jun 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Unequivalent" is not a real word.
Kitty I am some what impressed. You caught on to that before SucTheBone did. What was it that tipped you off? The link I posted or did it finally sink in? LOL

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#93436 Jun 20, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Kitty I am some what impressed. You caught on to that before SucTheBone did. What was it that tipped you off? The link I posted or did it finally sink in? LOL
It's called spellcheck.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#93437 Jun 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets start with that. Myth?
The Big Bang arose as a potential explanation for an observation - the Red Shift by Hubble in the 1920s. However, on this alone the idea was not taken too seriously by scientists. For example at the time, Einstein rejected it, though there was no other serious explanation for the red shift effect. It was just one anomaly, and could not justify a revolutionary cosmology alone.
Forty years later, another effect was noticed. Big Bang had predicted a cosmic background microwave radiation that should permeate space. By accident, it was discovered in the 1960s. Now the Big Bang was taken seriously, as like a good scientific theory it had made a testable prediction which was confirmed.
Since then, multiple additional lines of evidence have emerged that support the Big Bang. Perhaps you could look them up in Wiki or something, instead of making asinine comments about "myths".
Scientists, who go where the physical evidence takes them, not some ancient scripture, generally support the Big Bang. Its the best explanation we have for the evidence we have. And that is the ONLY reason they support it.
That is not a myth. Its how science works.
The Big Bang was the revelation by God, "I think therefore I AM" Only space, energy, and time existed before that. The universe is an astral projection of the mind of God. It is limitless and ever expanding.

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
2words into 2new words (May '12) 24 min Mila Beaujolais 6,858
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 25 min Mila Beaujolais 45,788
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 27 min Mutant-cucumber 83,175
Start a sentence in alphabetical order.. 30 min Mila Beaujolais 1,713
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 38 min Mila Beaujolais 61,103
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 42 min Mila Beaujolais 5,869
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 44 min Mila Beaujolais 15,269
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 1 hr Poppyann 1,515
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 hr Poppyann 10,643
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Brandon 207,164
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Grace Nerissa 67,250
What Topics knows about you 6 hr _Susan_ 85
More from around the web