Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 164473 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.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#94562 Jun 30, 2013
Seputa wrote:
<quoted text>Nobody has proved evolution, and even if they proved it doesn't answer how everything began. 99% of people believing something does not make true. Let's just admit we don't know yet...
How many times and way does it have to be reiterated that the ToE is not about "how everything began."

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94563 Jun 30, 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.
So funny to hear this crappola stated openly, but at least it explains your weird belief system.

Firstly, its hilarious for your to claim our egos are fragile. You are the one who has to believe that the entire universe was created merely as a test for your soul. If that is not egotistical, I don;t know what is.

On the other hand, I think its pretty clear that our entire species might easily never have existed, and does so only for the briefest moment on one little planet out of 10^24 in the observable universe, for the briefest moment in a universe that has and will last billions of years.

As for the ad hominem, if I did become a Christian my life would hardly change at all. I am married and faithful, don't do drugs apart from a bit of alcohol, haven't stolen or got involved in any "perverted amoral practices" in particular and don't intend to.

I have many atheist friends who live more or less the same way.

So you are merely building a strawman to hack to pieces, as usual.

What you are actually trying to conceal is that you have such a cowardly fear of DEATH that you will believe in fairytales in order to avoid facing it. But unable to honestly acknowledge your own cowardice, you choose instead to slur others who refuse to believe in your fairy tales.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94564 Jun 30, 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.
When we talk about evolution here, we are generally referring to the modern synthesis based on Darwin's theory, which covers only the last two above.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94565 Jun 30, 2013
HTS wrote:
It [evolution] is worthless debunked dogma.
As you keep saying, and yet you still have been unable to debunk it.

All you seem to be able to do is make claims that the evidence such as radiometric dating and the fossils and the nested hierarchy of variation found by comparing different genomes is not true not true not true. But your attempt to debunk these have failed as well.

Then you just whine that its atheism (which its not) and running ad hominem attacks against atheists or supposed atheists.

None of this is debunking evolution by anyone's logic.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94566 Jun 30, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Good on the biology teacher!
I hope your daughter learnt a valuable lesson: that tbkse Creationist arguments only work when engaging other creationist loons. When engaging someone with actual knowledge about the subject matter, those silly arguments fall flat on its face. You see? The doctrine you teach your kids is a total embarassment.
Perhaps it is tine for you to ask yourself a question:"what if I am wrong about this?". If you are, which anybody with half an education can tell you, then you are making your children look like fools.
You have got it all wrong DF and HTS has it right. My kids watched me debate university profs, a geology dept head and the uni president and befuddle them all as God helped me. Some converted my our side. My kids are all professional people (exp my 18YO) and know the truth. They get it at the cell level, the chem level and the geo level. They see it and feel sorry for the others. They have the big picture and where all this is headed. Look at where society is headed now that the evo worldview has taken over here. The numbers are telling, it has failed because it's a lie and goes against Gods framework of life, worldview and order.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94567 Jun 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I pointed out that you were making claims that had already been refuted at great length.
For example, the claim that radiometric dating is unreliable.
You want to rehash once for good measure? OK.
You made a number of claims.
1. Decay rates could have changed. Nope, we have spectral analysis form distant stars plus evidence of a 1.8 billion year old natural reactor on earth among other things, that attest to constant or near constant decay rates.
2. Leakage from the object could throw the dates off. Yes, but in many cases we have more than one dating method available for the same object, and it would be a massive coincidence if the dates were consistent for two methods if either or both had leakage.
3. Some lab refused to date an object as too young. Of course - if an object shows at the lower or higher extreme of a particular method, the technicians know that the dating will be unreliable and if possible will recommend a method with a different range. The range of a particular method depends on the decay rates of the tested elements. You cannot measure the length of a microbe with a carpenter's tape.
4. If the Earth was really only 10,000 years old, then the datings would be off the scale at the lower extremes for almost all radiometric methods. Clearly that is not the case.
SO after all that was discussed at length a couple of weeks back, you simply repeat the claim "radiometric dating is unreliable", without ever having countered the points above.
That is dishonest. Unless you have new arguments or evidence to counter these points, you have to accept that in fact, radiometric dating is reliable. That is how rational debate works, HTS.
Something isn't wrong just because you wish it was.
Our side embarked on a 7 year project to look at the isochron decay rate issue vs young earth.

They went back to a number of sites studied in the past by establishment scientists that formed the bulk of the modern lit on the subject, then submitted samples to multiple labs double blind.

What they found has ended up reopening the issue of reliability of long-age dating using isochon theory. Their primary paper called the "Rate Project" has passed peer review and been presented at a number of conferences being hailed as a "refreshing look" at the issue across a spectrum of geology professionals.

Apart from the lack of concordance between dating methods (sometimes over 900my) other testable chemical clocks contradicted the entire isochon system. The truth will win in the end.

http://www.icr.org/article/young-helium-diffu...

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#94568 Jun 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
All that is true. But when we say "evolution has no direction" we generally mean something a bit different. Its a common misconception that evolution is somehow "reaching higher" or was pointed at creating something like a mankind who now proudly sit at the pinnacle. But that is not how evolution works.
If we could start again from say the Cambrian, and run it forward for 500 million years all over again, the chances of a human being popping out the end of it would be vanishingly small. Even the chance of their being mammals, dinosaurs, birds, insects. And entirely different set of plants and animals would almost certainly have evolved.
The other aspect of this misconception is the idea that humans are also automatically evolving into something higher again...the "X-men" idea, and all that. Its not how evolution works.
Although with a bit of deliberate genetic manipulation, people might start monkeying around with the template in the next century....
Yo amigo.

I had this very discussion (albeit in flesh and bone) just the other day. Hell. Of not for the Devonian Extinction, nothong on land would have evolved. So saying hunan beings/intelligent life would pop out after 650 million years (or how long you want to make it), is never a certainty

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#94569 Jun 30, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Our side embarked on a 7 year project to look at the isochron decay rate issue vs young earth.
They went back to a number of sites studied in the past by establishment scientists that formed the bulk of the modern lit on the subject, then submitted samples to multiple labs double blind.
What they found has ended up reopening the issue of reliability of long-age dating using isochon theory. Their primary paper called the "Rate Project" has passed peer review and been presented at a number of conferences being hailed as a "refreshing look" at the issue across a spectrum of geology professionals.
Apart from the lack of concordance between dating methods (sometimes over 900my) other testable chemical clocks contradicted the entire isochon system. The truth will win in the end.
http://www.icr.org/article/young-helium-diffu...
The "RATE Project"?

This was a lesson in the deceptive "science" as practiced by ICR. For a more complete list of the bad science foisted upon the gullible (you), please see http://www.oldearth.org/ratedeception.htm

Conclusion



Scientists know the inherent problems in dating metamorphic rocks. So do the young earth theorists. In either one of these two possibilities listed above, the young-earth position is questionable. Either the RATE people had bad sampling and bad lab work, or they stacked the deck in advance.

Both old-earth creationists and young earth creationists know the problems with metamorphic rocks. The old-earth scientists look for other reliable methods, such as dating the layers above and below, taking hundreds of samples, comparing the layer's position within the geologic column, etc., while the young earthers focus on the faulty metamorphic methods. It is a case of one group of scientists looking for valid dating techniques, and another group complaining about the problems associated with dating. As you can see, one side can be called optimists (old earth), and the other pessimists (young earth).

If you understand radiometric dating, and know its limitations, it proves to be a very useful tool. Young earth theorists will call attention to apparent problems they find with dating, and yes, there are problems out there, but the results of radiometric dating are consistent enough to be trusted. Overall, radiometric dating is accurate and useful in dating rocks which are millions of years old.

<<end cut/paste>>

The above was from a website called "Old Earth Ministries: Bringing the Bible and Science together without conflict"

As a "casual agnostic", I may have some philosophical disagreements in areas other than the one(s) covered above, but they do provide a good rebuttal to ICR and their fraudulent "RATE" study.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94570 Jun 30, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Our side embarked on a 7 year project to look at the isochron decay rate issue vs young earth.
They went back to a number of sites studied in the past by establishment scientists that formed the bulk of the modern lit on the subject, then submitted samples to multiple labs double blind.
What they found has ended up reopening the issue of reliability of long-age dating using isochon theory. Their primary paper called the "Rate Project" has passed peer review and been presented at a number of conferences being hailed as a "refreshing look" at the issue across a spectrum of geology professionals.
Apart from the lack of concordance between dating methods (sometimes over 900my) other testable chemical clocks contradicted the entire isochon system. The truth will win in the end.
http://www.icr.org/article/young-helium-diffu...
I see that Kong already debunked this extremely dubious post.

You claim that the article passed peer review. Where did it pass peer review?

Since creationist articles never pass peer review creationists have formed their own "peer review". Of course investigation of the articles show that they are so filled with errors that creationist review should be renamed "creationist circle jerk".

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94571 Jun 30, 2013
Oh, I see there is no need to answer my peer review question. Kong's article shows that SBT's article was not really a peer reviewed article. Just as I suspected it was a creationist circle jerked review article.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#94572 Jun 30, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Oh, I see there is no need to answer my peer review question. Kong's article shows that SBT's article was not really a peer reviewed article. Just as I suspected it was a creationist circle jerked review article.
Yeah. I didn't post the "peer-review" portion of the rebuttal earlier. Thanks for reminding me!

Re: RATE's "peer-review" claim:

"They claim to have accomplished important work in the field of radioisotope dating (see RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs!). However, when one looks at their claim in the second paragraph of this article, it says "with the release of several key peer-reviewed papers at the recent ICC (International Conference on Creationism), it is clear that RATE has made some fantastic progress, with real breakthroughs in this area."

Peer-review is critical for scientific research to be taken seriously (for a description of how peer-review works, click here). Basically, several other scientists who are experts in the field examine your work to see if it contains errors. Occasionally you will see young earth claims of their work being peer-reviewed, such as in the article above. However, for young earth work to be taken seriously, it must pass the muster of peer-review from non young-earth scientists. If you look at the three articles referenced in the article, there are no claims as to who did the peer-review.

Normally, a peer-reviewed article which passes muster would be published in a leading journal such as from the Geological Society of America, however, as you can see, these three so-called peer-reviewed articles only appear on the ICR website. If the RATE project truly publishes some work which is good enough for publication in secular journals, then they would surely pursue that route. It is clear in this case that the "peers" for these articles are other young-earth proponents, which cast serious doubts upon the validity of the works."

http://www.oldearth.org/ratedeception.htm

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94573 Jun 30, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
The "RATE Project"?
This was a lesson in the deceptive "science" as practiced by ICR. For a more complete list of the bad science foisted upon the gullible (you), please see http://www.oldearth.org/ratedeception.htm
Conclusion
Scientists know the inherent problems in dating metamorphic rocks. So do the young earth theorists. In either one of these two possibilities listed above, the young-earth position is questionable. Either the RATE people had bad sampling and bad lab work, or they stacked the deck in advance.
Both old-earth creationists and young earth creationists know the problems with metamorphic rocks. The old-earth scientists look for other reliable methods, such as dating the layers above and below, taking hundreds of samples, comparing the layer's position within the geologic column, etc., while the young earthers focus on the faulty metamorphic methods. It is a case of one group of scientists looking for valid dating techniques, and another group complaining about the problems associated with dating. As you can see, one side can be called optimists (old earth), and the other pessimists (young earth).
If you understand radiometric dating, and know its limitations, it proves to be a very useful tool. Young earth theorists will call attention to apparent problems they find with dating, and yes, there are problems out there, but the results of radiometric dating are consistent enough to be trusted. Overall, radiometric dating is accurate and useful in dating rocks which are millions of years old.
<<end cut/paste>>
The above was from a website called "Old Earth Ministries: Bringing the Bible and Science together without conflict"
As a "casual agnostic", I may have some philosophical disagreements in areas other than the one(s) covered above, but they do provide a good rebuttal to ICR and their fraudulent "RATE" study.
I appreciate the time you took to rebut my post, however, Austin's paper has past peer review and has been accepted to present. He sampled the same host rock's as those before him. If you wish to stand behind as good science the 4 top isochon methods that differ from each other by approx. 50% from each other in the same rock sample, that's your biz. And no, the samples were from the same strata that has for years been the basis of long-age dating recorded in the lit and passed out to the school books, all clearly in error for 40+ years.

The real issue was the labs had no idea they were blind testing so they were unable to 'correct' miss-alignments to fit preconceived models. They were not concordant so where's the science in that? Testable, repeatable? Further, they are challenged strongly by dating techniques that are testable and repeatable (HE being only one, PO 214 another). So lets see, we just won't confuse young minds with that.

These guys are not as you picture them at all. Dr. Humphries has been rocking the planetary magnetism establishment for years, nailing the field strength of the outer planets in theory before spacecraft confirmed them. Objectivity concerning origins is good for mind and soul.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94574 Jun 30, 2013
Well, now you know that I read the articles you link Kong.

Actually I even read the garbage that creationists link, or at the very least scan it. I will not watch a one or two hour long creatard video that starts lying in the first few minutes.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94575 Jun 30, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
You have got it all wrong DF and HTS has it right. My kids watched me debate university profs, a geology dept head and the uni president and befuddle them all as God helped me. Some converted my our side. My kids are all professional people (exp my 18YO) and know the truth. They get it at the cell level, the chem level and the geo level. They see it and feel sorry for the others. They have the big picture and where all this is headed. Look at where society is headed now that the evo worldview has taken over here. The numbers are telling, it has failed because it's a lie and goes against Gods framework of life, worldview and order.
Now we know you are a liar.
youtube

AOL

#94576 Jun 30, 2013
.

ANTICHRIST & Final Prophecies -- In Plain View

http://youtu.be/msY91du0rB4

.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94577 Jun 30, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate the time you took to rebut my post, however, Austin's paper has past peer review and has been accepted to present. He sampled the same host rock's as those before him. If you wish to stand behind as good science the 4 top isochon methods that differ from each other by approx. 50% from each other in the same rock sample, that's your biz. And no, the samples were from the same strata that has for years been the basis of long-age dating recorded in the lit and passed out to the school books, all clearly in error for 40+ years.
The real issue was the labs had no idea they were blind testing so they were unable to 'correct' miss-alignments to fit preconceived models. They were not concordant so where's the science in that? Testable, repeatable? Further, they are challenged strongly by dating techniques that are testable and repeatable (HE being only one, PO 214 another). So lets see, we just won't confuse young minds with that.
These guys are not as you picture them at all. Dr. Humphries has been rocking the planetary magnetism establishment for years, nailing the field strength of the outer planets in theory before spacecraft confirmed them. Objectivity concerning origins is good for mind and soul.
Repeating a lie does not make it true.

If you want to make this claim you must link to the peer reviewed article itself.

Creatard "peer review" is not peer review. That has been shown to be the case countless times. It is merely a creationist circle jerk at best.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#94578 Jun 30, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>but why does it drop?
Because its heavy. You didn't know that?
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#94579 Jun 30, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Law's are lower in the hierarchy of science than theories.

You have no clue what a theory is, do you?
LOL. If you're going to correct someone then try being correct yourself.

" it is true that "law" and "theory" are different words that can or do have different connotations. So, what's the difference? Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" where as biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.

Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is

NO hierarchy

being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science. Furthermore, notice that with any of the above definitions of law, neither scientists nor nature "conform" to the law. In science, a law is not something that is dictated to scientists or nature; it is not something that a scientist or nature has to do under threat of some penalty if they don't conform."

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theo...

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94580 Jun 30, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. I didn't post the "peer-review" portion of the rebuttal earlier. Thanks for reminding me!
Re: RATE's "peer-review" claim:
"They claim to have accomplished important work in the field of radioisotope dating (see RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs!). However, when one looks at their claim in the second paragraph of this article, it says "with the release of several key peer-reviewed papers at the recent ICC (International Conference on Creationism), it is clear that RATE has made some fantastic progress, with real breakthroughs in this area."
Peer-review is critical for scientific research to be taken seriously (for a description of how peer-review works, click here). Basically, several other scientists who are experts in the field examine your work to see if it contains errors. Occasionally you will see young earth claims of their work being peer-reviewed, such as in the article above. However, for young earth work to be taken seriously, it must pass the muster of peer-review from non young-earth scientists. If you look at the three articles referenced in the article, there are no claims as to who did the peer-review.
Normally, a peer-reviewed article which passes muster would be published in a leading journal such as from the Geological Society of America, however, as you can see, these three so-called peer-reviewed articles only appear on the ICR website. If the RATE project truly publishes some work which is good enough for publication in secular journals, then they would surely pursue that route. It is clear in this case that the "peers" for these articles are other young-earth proponents, which cast serious doubts upon the validity of the works."
http://www.oldearth.org/ratedeception.htm
You're wrong. It was major geo meeting. I would not have mentioned ICC at all to you folks.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94581 Jun 30, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Repeating a lie does not make it true.
If you want to make this claim you must link to the peer reviewed article itself.
Creatard "peer review" is not peer review. That has been shown to be the case countless times. It is merely a creationist circle jerk at best.
You folks all bought into "global warming" too. All those undergrad, masters and PhD's conferred based on a manipulated database and lies, same principal here, dogma dies hard. We are back to opinions and counters, you don't want to deal with the findings of fact in the tables. You don't want to deal with PO214, you don't want to deal with HE. I will tell you again, the PhD's in radiodating don't like to be out of a job and give up their God status on your side. Bias, bias, bias.

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
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 min TALLYHO 8541 40,771
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 5 min Jeffrey 140,484
News 'John Wayne Day' in Texas Honors Actor's 108th ... 8 min TALLYHO 8541 22
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) 9 min Suezanne 1,848
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 14 min beatlesinafog 666
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 18 min Hoosier Hillbilly 5,787
Poll New "Drop one Word" With Famous People's Names (Oct '12) 20 min beatlesinafog 778
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Dream Crystal 163,090
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 1 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 31,999
News New and Totally Bizarre Baby Names 7 hr Spotted Girl 9
More from around the web