Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 199549 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.

EXPERT

Redding, CA

#94277 Jun 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go, yet again, demonstrating you know nothing scientific.
Sure, like you know something. LMAO

COWARD!!!

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#94278 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).
OK I take it back, this is right, above you had it worded backwards though when you said laws explain things.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#94279 Jun 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Laws only cover simple observations that never change.
They describe an event, they don't explain them.
Can you provide an example of one of those laws?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#94280 Jun 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
And to you also. read it yourself.

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

I guess I need to remember there are so many qualified scientists on topix that know more than real scientists. LOL

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#94281 Jun 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
"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.
Uhm actually macro is over longer periods of time while micro is over shorter periods of time.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#94282 Jun 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go, yet again, demonstrating you know nothing scientific.
Do you always just assert a reply with no supporting evidence? Oh wait, you are Kitty so yes, yes you do always assert things and ramble on meaninglessly with no evidence. LOL

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#94283 Jun 27, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you provide an example of one of those laws?
Sure Newtons 1st law of motion.

An object in motion will tend to stay in constant velocity, with respect to an inertial reference frame, until acted on by force.

“ROCK ON ROCKERS!!”

Level 8

Since: Mar 11

Rockin' USA ;)

#94284 Jun 27, 2013
BREAKTIME...Chisels Down ..

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#94285 Jun 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go, yet again, demonstrating you know nothing scientific.
You do know what Self-replicate means don't you?

Self-replication is any behavior of a dynamical system that yields construction of an "identical copy of itself". Key words are 'yields construction of an "identical copy of itself'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replication

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94286 Jun 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhm actually macro is over longer periods of time while micro is over shorter periods of time.
Still no demonstrable boundary? Thank you for providing evidence of my assertion being accurate.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94287 Jun 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know what Self-replicate means don't you?
Self-replication is any behavior of a dynamical system that yields construction of an "identical copy of itself". Key words are 'yields construction of an "identical copy of itself'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replication
There you go, yet again, demonstrating you know nothing scientific. This could go on all day.

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#94288 Jun 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
And to you also. read it yourself.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/...
I guess I need to remember there are so many qualified scientists on topix that know more than real scientists. LOL

We were saying the same thing, but I do not agree with the way it was worded there.

Wiki.

A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

Live Science.

While scientific theories and laws are both based on hypotheses, a scientific theory is an explanation of the observed phenomenon, while a scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon.

http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-la...

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#94289 Jun 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Now wait I have seen many times when you evoturds say microevolution is BS.
returd, returd, returd. Still holding the intelligence embargo I see. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

I can't say what others have said or even if you possess the comprehension of what you may have read to pose such a question. What I can say is that micro- and macroevolution are the same thing in a different time scale. Creationists make more of the distinction than science does because they feel less able to refute so called microevolution and erroneously view them as wholly distinct.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#94290 Jun 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you always just assert a reply with no supporting evidence? Oh wait, you are Kitty so yes, yes you do always assert things and ramble on meaninglessly with no evidence. LOL
You really are good a picking up the lingo and the style so that you can sound like you know what you are talking about. Have you ever had an original thought that lasted past the first flush?
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#94291 Jun 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure Newtons 1st law of motion.
An object in motion will tend to stay in constant velocity, with respect to an inertial reference frame, until acted on by force.
Thanks.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#94292 Jun 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Still no demonstrable boundary? Thank you for providing evidence of my assertion being accurate.
All you are doing is asserting that you know nothing of what you believe.

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#94293 Jun 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
And to you also. read it yourself.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/...
I guess I need to remember there are so many qualified scientists on topix that know more than real scientists. LOL
Actually the more I look at this, I think someone goofed and wrote the two words backwards.

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

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Should have been written.

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws describe things, but they do not explain them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Evident by the very next thing.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

You found a typo by ( about.com )

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#94294 Jun 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go, yet again, demonstrating you know nothing scientific. This could go on all day.
All you are doing is asserting that you know nothing of what you believe.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#94295 Jun 27, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>returd, returd, returd. Still holding the intelligence embargo I see. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
I can't say what others have said or even if you possess the comprehension of what you may have read to pose such a question. What I can say is that micro- and macroevolution are the same thing in a different time scale. Creationists make more of the distinction than science does because they feel less able to refute so called microevolution and erroneously view them as wholly distinct.
Uhm I already said they are on different time scales. See above comments. Get caught up or go to bed old man.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#94296 Jun 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Actually the more I look at this, I think someone goofed and wrote the two words backwards.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/...
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
Should have been written.
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws describe things, but they do not explain them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
Evident by the very next thing.
Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.
You found a typo by ( about.com )
On that I would have to agree.

"A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain(should be describes) things, but they do not describe(should be 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
News new Are Disney Princesses hurting your kid's se... 9 min Spotted Girl 51
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 15 min eleanorigby 56,925
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) 23 min 8541 MARINE 7,409
tell me one word to describe yourself (Jun '09) 23 min steve 15,880
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 56 min Helpful Hint 10,171
human sexuality topic ? 1 hr Tinka 10
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 1 hr -Prince- 145,508
2words into 2new words (May '12) 2 hr Poppyann 2,354
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Sublime1 193,005
More from around the web