Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201346 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94257 Jun 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
A scientific laws explain things, not describe them. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'. Example: We can use Newton's LoG to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but we couldn't explain why it happened.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. If evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
A scientific hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
All quoted from Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.. Need I say more?
Actually she got it wrong. Laws tend to be observations without explanations. Theories are observations with explanations.

There are no real "laws of physics" since just about every one has well known exceptions. And once again, theories outrank mere laws. No scientist wants to discover a new law today, theories are where it is at. Here is an example, for a while it was known that Newton's Law of Gravity was wrong. There were definite problems with the precession of Mercury. There were various hypotheses created including an imaginary planet "Vulcan". It wasn't until Einstein came along with his Theories of Gravity that the problem was fixed.

The only truly valid Laws that I know of are the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94258 Jun 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm lets see. I posted - Gravity is a fact; a law. What is theoretical are the mathematical models that are used to predict the force of gravity.
You brilliantly asked "why does it fall"
I replied with - What is theoretical are the mathematical models that are used to predict the force of gravity(the why's so to speak).
And now you again come up with this brilliant reply which has already been covered in the very first post.
Mr. brilliance tell why things fall since you won't accept that what is theoretical are the mathematical models that are used to predict the force of gravity(the why's so to speak).
The "Law of Gravity" was found to have flaws in it. Einstein's theory of gravity is 100% correct, so far.

The theory of evolution is 100% correct, so far.

Even if either of them were found to be wrong the correction for either one would be very very small.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#94259 Jun 27, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>your cult's bible is a proven farce.
you worship a false idol, like all the religious cult members before you...
Why does what he believes bother you so much? Does it really effect your life on what he believes in his life? I mean really you calling it a cult or a fake God or myth does not effect my life in anyway that is why I just easily brush it off. Other words what you believe is meaningless to me but man oh man what others believe just seems to eat you up. I find that funny

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#94260 Jun 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh it is the return of the man who takes his name after someone he hates and stalks.
"I am better, smarter, and know more than you" types that knows very little describes you to a tee. You even act that way in the Missouri political forums.
Oh that hurts. ROFL!
In reference to you, yes it does. Thank you.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#94261 Jun 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh it is the return of the man who takes his name after someone he hates and stalks.
"I am better, smarter, and know more than you" types that knows very little describes you to a tee. You even act that way in the Missouri political forums.
I often wonder what a person armed with ignorance, fear, hatred and anger would call themselves. replaytime, hmmm. I wouldn't have guessed.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#94262 Jun 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually she got it wrong. Laws tend to be observations without explanations. Theories are observations with explanations.
There are no real "laws of physics" since just about every one has well known exceptions. And once again, theories outrank mere laws. No scientist wants to discover a new law today, theories are where it is at. Here is an example, for a while it was known that Newton's Law of Gravity was wrong. There were definite problems with the precession of Mercury. There were various hypotheses created including an imaginary planet "Vulcan". It wasn't until Einstein came along with his Theories of Gravity that the problem was fixed.
The only truly valid Laws that I know of are the Laws of Thermodynamics.
I will take your word over her word said no one ever. LOL
Again with you, you show it is all about everyone is wrong and you are right unless they agree with you, no matter who says it.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#94263 Jun 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually she got it wrong. Laws tend to be observations without explanations. Theories are observations with explanations.
There are no real "laws of physics" since just about every one has well known exceptions. And once again, theories outrank mere laws. No scientist wants to discover a new law today, theories are where it is at. Here is an example, for a while it was known that Newton's Law of Gravity was wrong. There were definite problems with the precession of Mercury. There were various hypotheses created including an imaginary planet "Vulcan". It wasn't until Einstein came along with his Theories of Gravity that the problem was fixed.
The only truly valid Laws that I know of are the Laws of Thermodynamics.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/...
HTS

Mandan, ND

#94264 Jun 27, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does what he believes bother you so much? Does it really effect your life on what he believes in his life? I mean really you calling it a cult or a fake God or myth does not effect my life in anyway that is why I just easily brush it off. Other words what you believe is meaningless to me but man oh man what others believe just seems to eat you up. I find that funny
It's really very simple...Atheists refuse to take an accountability. The concept of a supreme being is threatening to their fragile egos. Their lack of accountability extends into every aspect of their lives...hence their grossly corrupted scientific practices. They want to be descendants from apes so that they are free to practice their perverted amoral lifestyles without guilt.

Darwinism is a religion, pure and simple. It bears no resemblance to actual science. It is worthless debunked dogma.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#94265 Jun 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The "Law of Gravity" was found to have flaws in it. Einstein's theory of gravity is 100% correct, so far.
The theory of evolution is 100% correct, so far.
Even if either of them were found to be wrong the correction for either one would be very very small.
Which theory?

Cosmic Evolution. The development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing.

Stellar Evolution. The development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements.

Chemical Evolution. The development of all chemical elements from an original two.

Planetary Evolution. The development of planetary systems from swirling elements.

Organic Evolution. The development of organic life from inorganic matter (a rock).

Macro-Evolution. The development of one kind of life from a totally different kind of life.

Micro-Evolution. The development of variations within the same kind of life.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#94266 Jun 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I will take your word over her word said no one ever. LOL
Again with you, you show it is all about everyone is wrong and you are right unless they agree with you, no matter who says it.
That is because you don't know enough to know any better. With your attitude, I predict that you never will know any better. Bring back GLXGT. At least that personality had some personality.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#94267 Jun 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's really very simple...Atheists refuse to take an accountability. The concept of a supreme being is threatening to their fragile egos. Their lack of accountability extends into every aspect of their lives...hence their grossly corrupted scientific practices. They want to be descendants from apes so that they are free to practice their perverted amoral lifestyles without guilt.
Darwinism is a religion, pure and simple. It bears no resemblance to actual science. It is worthless debunked dogma.
You are so ignorant, you may be beyond help. It is science and accepted by practitioners of all religions and by some atheists as well.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#94268 Jun 27, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Which theory?
Cosmic Evolution. The development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing.
Stellar Evolution. The development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements.
Chemical Evolution. The development of all chemical elements from an original two.
Planetary Evolution. The development of planetary systems from swirling elements.
Organic Evolution. The development of organic life from inorganic matter (a rock).
Macro-Evolution. The development of one kind of life from a totally different kind of life.
Micro-Evolution. The development of variations within the same kind of life.
The last two are part of the same theory of evolution.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#94269 Jun 27, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Which theory?
Cosmic Evolution. The development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing.
Stellar Evolution. The development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements.
Chemical Evolution. The development of all chemical elements from an original two.
Planetary Evolution. The development of planetary systems from swirling elements.
Organic Evolution. The development of organic life from inorganic matter (a rock).
Macro-Evolution. The development of one kind of life from a totally different kind of life.
Micro-Evolution. The development of variations within the same kind of life.
Now you know what he meant. He meant that we evolved from nothing up to an ape and then from a ape up to us. You should have know that was what he was talking about. For you see when he gets confused and doesn't know or say things clearly then he blames us for we should know what he meant. LMAO

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#94270 Jun 27, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That is because you don't know enough to know any better. With your attitude, I predict that you never will know any better. Bring back GLXGT. At least that personality had some personality.
Read the link yourself. Here it is again.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/...

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#94271 Jun 27, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The last two are part of the same theory of evolution.
Now wait I have seen many times when you evoturds say microevolution is BS.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#94272 Jun 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm lets see. I posted - Gravity is a fact; a law. What is theoretical are the mathematical models that are used to predict the force of gravity.
You brilliantly asked "why does it fall"
I replied with - What is theoretical are the mathematical models that are used to predict the force of gravity(the why's so to speak).
And now you again come up with this brilliant reply which has already been covered in the very first post.
Mr. brilliance tell why things fall since you won't accept that what is theoretical are the mathematical models that are used to predict the force of gravity(the why's so to speak).
Actually you're wrong, the universal law of gravitation is a statement. The calculations that determine what the statement means exactly , in measure are separate.

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Free fall, mass, newtons are all separate calculations. Then there are the three laws of motion. That help explain mass, acceleration, momentum, and force.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#94273 Jun 27, 2013
I am beginning to think this SucTheBigBone is just a drunk or a druggy. He evidently does not have a job for he is on here all the time, all hours throughout the day and night, 7 days a week. He gets going on something then just disappears for an hour or two like he has to get a fix or passes out for a little while, then pops right back on and starts going on again. He already has admitted to posting on here and then setting around waiting for replies. He acts to childish to be an elderly person and does not have the temperament and knowledge an elderly person would have so that rules that out. Makes one wonder. LOL

Oh and before you go there. I had shoulder and elbow surgery, still in PT so this free time I am on is just rented. It will be gone soon.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94274 Jun 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
We all supposedly came from "one" something that somehow learned to self replicate. See that is the problem. "self replicate" means a copy of itself not a change of species or a copy of something different (how ever you want to see it).
There you go, yet again, demonstrating you know nothing scientific.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94275 Jun 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Now wait I have seen many times when you evoturds say microevolution is BS.
"Micro" and "macro" is because there has never been a boundary demonstrated to segregate the two notions. The notions are the same as saying a rainbow only has three colors.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#94276 Jun 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
A scientific laws explain things, not describe them. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'. Example: We can use Newton's LoG to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but we couldn't explain why it happened.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. If evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
A scientific hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
All quoted from Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.. Need I say more?
Laws only cover simple observations that never change.
They describe an event, they don't explain them.

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 5 min wichita-rick 194,323
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 7 min KNIGHT DeVINE 18,428
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 14 min CJ Rocker 3,510
Single riders at carnivals/county fairs have ZE... 40 min County fair man 4
News Man shoots himself in the face in a weird attem... 40 min wichita-rick 17
only TWO words! (Nov '08) 52 min andet1987 27,472
Post any FOUR words 1 hr andet1987 1,030
TRUMP, Donald (Jun '15) 1 hr andet1987 178
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 3 hr grace-fallen 32,681
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 3 hr Uncle Enzo 8,540
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 4 hr Go Blue Forever 7,826
More from around the web