Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 comments on the Jan 6, 2011, Best of New Orleans story 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.

“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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94582 Jun 30, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No, those lies have all been dealt with.

And why did you lie and say that your earlier work had passed peer review. It is obvious that you now know that was a lie.

And yes, global warming is real. The Greenhouse Effect is even accepted by deniers. They know without a certain amount of CO2 that our world would be an iceball. What they keep denying is that doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere will have very sever repercussions.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#94583 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.
Who were these university professors and where was this debate. Society is far better off over the last 200 years due to advancements of science. Are you denying that?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#94584 Jun 30, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Because its heavy. You didn't know that?
what makes it heavy? and, as we all know, two objects of different weight still drop at the same rate, so that is not all that is going one there.

once again, youtalk of things you don't understand...

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#94585 Jun 30, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Who were these university professors and where was this debate. Society is far better off over the last 200 years due to advancements of science. Are you denying that?
Science has advanced us in the last 200 years there is no doubt. Look at the technology. But science does not do anything for morals, well except maybe try to take them away from people that do believe and live by the word of God. Many morals people have and live by are on beliefs.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#94586 Jun 30, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what makes it heavy? and, as we all know, two objects of different weight still drop at the same rate, so that is not all that is going one there.
once again, youtalk of things you don't understand...
When air resistance plays a role, the shape of the object becomes important. In air, a feather and a ball do not fall at the same rate. In the case of a pen and a bowling ball air resistance is small compared to the force a gravity that pulls them to the ground. Therefore, if you drop a pen and a bowling ball you could probably not tell which of the two reached the ground first "unless you dropped them from a very very high tower". Thus it not only is based on the shape of the object, the air resistance of the object but mainly on the force of the pulling gravity which the shape and air resistance can change.

But if you still think two objects of different weights fall at the same speed I will bet you what ever you want that a 20lb weight will reach the ground faster than a ostrich feather when dropped from a house top or even from as high as you can reach.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#94587 Jun 30, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
When air resistance plays a role, the shape of the object becomes important. In air, a feather and a ball do not fall at the same rate. In the case of a pen and a bowling ball air resistance is small compared to the force a gravity that pulls them to the ground. Therefore, if you drop a pen and a bowling ball you could probably not tell which of the two reached the ground first "unless you dropped them from a very very high tower". Thus it not only is based on the shape of the object, the air resistance of the object but mainly on the force of the pulling gravity which the shape and air resistance can change.
But if you still think two objects of different weights fall at the same speed I will bet you what ever you want that a 20lb weight will reach the ground faster than a ostrich feather when dropped from a house top or even from as high as you can reach.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#94588 Jun 30, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
When air resistance plays a role, the shape of the object becomes important. In air, a feather and a ball do not fall at the same rate. In the case of a pen and a bowling ball air resistance is small compared to the force a gravity that pulls them to the ground. Therefore, if you drop a pen and a bowling ball you could probably not tell which of the two reached the ground first "unless you dropped them from a very very high tower". Thus it not only is based on the shape of the object, the air resistance of the object but mainly on the force of the pulling gravity which the shape and air resistance can change.
But if you still think two objects of different weights fall at the same speed I will bet you what ever you want that a 20lb weight will reach the ground faster than a ostrich feather when dropped from a house top or even from as high as you can reach.
a twenty pound ball and a ten pound ball of the same size will fall at the same rate.

anything else you wish to learn about the topics you think you can debunk?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#94589 Jun 30, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has advanced us in the last 200 years there is no doubt. Look at the technology. But science does not do anything for morals, well except maybe try to take them away from people that do believe and live by the word of God. Many morals people have and live by are on beliefs.
your god is a proven myth and that is a good thing as his morals sucked the big one! he was a jealous, petty, vindictive little prick of a god that would be in jail if he actually existed and lived in a developed country today...

go ahead, follow your gods word, you'd be in jail by the time you got past the first few chapters of your cult's book of lies...

“pshhhhh”

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#94590 Jun 30, 2013
Haha all the tools on here that think they know everything there is to know sad ass losers SMH

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#94591 Jun 30, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
When air resistance plays a role, the shape of the object becomes important. In air, a feather and a ball do not fall at the same rate. In the case of a pen and a bowling ball air resistance is small compared to the force a gravity that pulls them to the ground. Therefore, if you drop a pen and a bowling ball you could probably not tell which of the two reached the ground first "unless you dropped them from a very very high tower". Thus it not only is based on the shape of the object, the air resistance of the object but mainly on the force of the pulling gravity which the shape and air resistance can change.
But if you still think two objects of different weights fall at the same speed I will bet you what ever you want that a 20lb weight will reach the ground faster than a ostrich feather when dropped from a house top or even from as high as you can reach.
i don't know, humans can reach pretty high. we've reached the edge of the solar system so far. if you dropped those items there, what do you think would happen?

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
"3 words beginning with similar Letters!" (Dec '12) 4 min andet1987 117
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 4 min Dennys Black Friend 18,179
Word Association (Jun '10) 5 min -ThatsAllFolks- 27,329
Write sentences with the first letter following... 7 min Hoosier Hillbilly 8
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 7 min Mr_FX 8,040
Word goes to the Movies (Nov '08) 8 min Go Blue Forever 14,277
Answer a question with a question 9 min Mr_FX 150
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 27 min I Am No One_ 161,521
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 58 min DILF 119
News HuffPost Is In Deep, Weird Denial About Bruce J... 1 hr TerryE 24
Things that make life eaiser... 1 hr DILF 152
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 1 hr -ThatsAllFolks- 28,884
More from around the web