Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209422 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.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#94814 Jul 1, 2013
Aussiebob wrote:
<quoted text>
Omfg do you not get it i dont believe in a single creator or a single theory thats kind of like putting all your eggs in one basket which makes nil sense
so your 'faith', like most cult members is just hedging your bet...

so which multiple creators do you believe in without one single shred of evidence for their existence?

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94815 Jul 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is not a lie. In fact it is always the creationists who end up lying. That is rather humorous.
For example you claimed your RATE study was peer reviewed and you have yet to provide a link showing that it was peer reviewed.
Wouldn't that make you a liar?
SZ, no matter how many links I provide you will make no diff. You are playing the lawyers game of keeping me on the defensive with busy requests that have little or nothing to do with the facts. When i find them you brush them off.

Fact is any 5th grader can be convinced that long-age isochon dating is a failed blunderbust of non-science. Do you realize that every other uniform or physics time measurement from moon dust to sediments to erosion to HE to PO214 to magnesium and so on and so on faults the isochons? It's so bad that none of my geo professors would consider using them on this issue in my undergrad, pretty telling to me. Go to school and find out for yourself, it's geo 102. The isochron's false each other and don't make any sense to correlate even in the strata vs the column. What are they then? Parent and Daughter decay isotopes with long half-lives that appear related. This was a major obstacle and the nuc physicists on the rate team were direct about it. We found using the same 4 major tests on the same rock sample's provided wildly differing age results IF, and I say IF, the sample's were given to multiple labs in blind. If you don't they start tossing out 'discordant ages' at will to fit the evo age model. The study caught them. One thing they were concordant in, they all had a fast fwd signature, interesting. The dates are also upside down (and always have been) in the G canyon, which should be your best model, again all buried in the tables, it gets old, they always want it both ways. And don't worry, I have alot more to say about dating systems.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94816 Jul 1, 2013
Aussiebob wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me that none ever existed ??
Can you ??
No
The burden of proof lies upon the person making the positive statement, not the other way around.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94817 Jul 1, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
SZ, no matter how many links I provide you will make no diff. You are playing the lawyers game of keeping me on the defensive with busy requests that have little or nothing to do with the facts. When i find them you brush them off.
Fact is any 5th grader can be convinced that long-age isochon dating is a failed blunderbust of non-science. Do you realize that every other uniform or physics time measurement from moon dust to sediments to erosion to HE to PO214 to magnesium and so on and so on faults the isochons? It's so bad that none of my geo professors would consider using them on this issue in my undergrad, pretty telling to me. Go to school and find out for yourself, it's geo 102. The isochron's false each other and don't make any sense to correlate even in the strata vs the column. What are they then? Parent and Daughter decay isotopes with long half-lives that appear related. This was a major obstacle and the nuc physicists on the rate team were direct about it. We found using the same 4 major tests on the same rock sample's provided wildly differing age results IF, and I say IF, the sample's were given to multiple labs in blind. If you don't they start tossing out 'discordant ages' at will to fit the evo age model. The study caught them. One thing they were concordant in, they all had a fast fwd signature, interesting. The dates are also upside down (and always have been) in the G canyon, which should be your best model, again all buried in the tables, it gets old, they always want it both ways. And don't worry, I have alot more to say about dating systems.
It is not the number. It is the quality.

You claimed your article was peer reviewed. I knew that was not the case, that was why I challenged you to show that it was peer reviewed. Like most lying creationists you ran away from your lie after you were caught.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94818 Jul 1, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact is any 5th grader can be convinced that long-age isochon dating is a failed blunderbust of non-science.
How do you expect anyone to believe you when you make such blatant lies.
Do you realize that every other uniform or physics time measurement from moon dust to sediments to erosion to HE to PO214 to magnesium and so on and so on faults the isochons?
Nope, more lies. Or complete idiocy on your part.
The first Moon dust estimate was off by orders of magnitude. There is no problem with Moon dust. You are getting your "science" from lying creatard sources. What sediments? Are you talking about those on the bottom of the ocean? You are truly an ignorant fool. Look at my user name.
It's so bad that none of my geo professors would consider using them on this issue in my undergrad, pretty telling to me. Go to school and find out for yourself, it's geo 102. The isochron's false each other and don't make any sense to correlate even in the strata vs the column. What are they then? Parent and Daughter decay isotopes with long half-lives that appear related. This was a major obstacle and the nuc physicists on the rate team were direct about it. We found using the same 4 major tests on the same rock sample's provided wildly differing age results IF, and I say IF, the sample's were given to multiple labs in blind. If you don't they start tossing out 'discordant ages' at will to fit the evo age model. The study caught them. One thing they were concordant in, they all had a fast fwd signature, interesting. The dates are also upside down (and always have been) in the G canyon, which should be your best model, again all buried in the tables, it gets old, they always want it both ways. And don't worry, I have alot more to say about dating systems.
Even more lies from a hopeless idiot. Plus you broke the rule on the Gish Gallop. If you want to make a list like this all it takes to debunk the whole list is to show that one item is wrong. Do you want to play that game?
I will give you another chance. Bring these up one at a time until you are tired. I will show you how each and every claim is wrong. Or if you bring the list up I will debunk it by choosing the one I want to debunk.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#94820 Jul 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>do you have to keep telling these proven lies to make youself fell better about worshipping a proven myth ? I know that must make you feel foolish...quite the gullible idiot, really, but most sane people would grow from that mistake, you seem to be devolving...
Which came first? the plants or the plant eaters?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94821 Jul 1, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I deal with hard science/technology and facts to make real things work every day here.
Then deal with this, written by an ex-Creation geologist.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...

Not a single creationist on this forum has had the balls to read it.

But its packed with the hard science you deal with every day, so perhaps you can deal with it. It also contain the full list of references to peer reviewed science.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94822 Jul 2, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
If you did have the fats you wouldn't be debating me about the burden of proof because you would have the proof. You have faith and belief like everyone else. I do have my personal proof and as I said I except you are not of God, you are a drone, or acting like you are a drone.
Faith versus Proof are not the only ways of looking at the world.

There is another way, which is, a degree of confidence based on the amount of supporting evidence and the lack of evidence against.

Nobody "believes in" evolution. They accept it as the best explanation we have based on the evidence - evidence explained by evolution and often predicted by it. If new evidence falsifies evolution, it will be modified or ditched. So far, in 150 years, no evidence has been found that falsifies it. So our level of confidence that it is true or close to true is pretty high.

That is the way we look at ALL scientific theories, and evolution is no different.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94823 Jul 2, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
You could trace back to Noah but not past Noah and his family. That's as far back as your bottle neck could go.
Funny that. There is no bottleneck in the human population around 5000 years ago or anything remotely close to that.

On the contrary, we have evidence from haplotype analysis etc that any bottleneck occurred at least 50,000 years ago, and that bottleneck still comprised at least 10,000 adults.

And for most creatures, there is no bottleneck even back then.

We have heard all the claims of evidence for a flood, and none of it is convincing. You also ignore the scientific method completely. You can have 10 or 50 pieces of evidence consistent with a Flood, but it only takes ONE verified falsification to debunk your hypothesis.

So lets add to the missing bottleneck, the 600,000+ years of continuous ice sheet cores, the archeological evidence of human continuity through any "flood period", the impossible requirements of an Ark given the number of species we now know exist, the inclusion of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in some but not all human populations...

Each alone would be enough to convince an objective thinker in the matter. The Flood is a myth. Probably derived from a real local flood event, possibly a huge one as north of the fertile crescent, the Black Sea was created in a single flood event around 6000 years ago, probably wiping out entire communities wholesale.

Having no better explanation at the time, no doubt this event was ascribed to the anger of the Gods at human sinfulness.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94824 Jul 2, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Your 3 BIG Myths:
1) the Big Bang when nothing exploded
and created everything.

etc

...And when I snap my fingers you will wake up and believe these 3 myths as if they were fact.
"SNAP"
Your problem being, the Big Bang is accepted by scientists at this time because it is supported by physical evidence that is difficult to explain any other way. Even better, the hypothesis was first considered when one piece of evidence was found (red shift), but not taken seriously until a second piece which the hypothesis had predicted showed up (the CMBR), and its now supported by multiple lines of evidence that in many cases it predicted.

At the same time, there is no evidence that falsifies it.

Nothing to do with myths or snapping of fingers. Just evidence, every time.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94825 Jul 2, 2013
Aussiebob wrote:
<quoted text>
You truly are dumb if you go back over these post you will find where it says i side neither way just as I'm not religious
But you and others went on a mad sarcastic rampage to avoid answering a very simple physics question about the rate of fall of two bullets.

The answer by AM was correct, including the modifier in case the horizontal distance covered by the bullet is significant in terms of the earth's surface curvature.

They will hit the ground at the same time. Each will accelerate towards the earth at 9.8m/s/s vertically regardless of their horizontal velocity. That is basic Newtonian mechanics, known and verified for 350 years.

Its not a crime not to know that. Not everyone did physics, and why should they?

But we will take this simple example as an indicator of how you are likely to respond to any question you cannot answer - with bluster, insults, and legalistic twisting.

Its so much easier to learn something than to endlessly defend ignorance.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94826 Jul 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
SZ, no matter how many links I provide you will make no diff. You are playing the lawyers game of keeping me on the defensive with busy requests that have little or nothing to do with the facts. When i find them you brush them off.
Fact is any 5th grader can be convinced that long-age isochon dating is a failed blunderbust of non-science. Do you realize that every other uniform or physics time measurement from moon dust to sediments to erosion to HE to PO214 to magnesium and so on and so on faults the isochons? It's so bad that none of my geo professors would consider using them on this issue in my undergrad, pretty telling to me. Go to school and find out for yourself, it's geo 102. The isochron's false each other and don't make any sense to correlate even in the strata vs the column. What are they then? Parent and Daughter decay isotopes with long half-lives that appear related. This was a major obstacle and the nuc physicists on the rate team were direct about it. We found using the same 4 major tests on the same rock sample's provided wildly differing age results IF, and I say IF, the sample's were given to multiple labs in blind. If you don't they start tossing out 'discordant ages' at will to fit the evo age model. The study caught them. One thing they were concordant in, they all had a fast fwd signature, interesting. The dates are also upside down (and always have been) in the G canyon, which should be your best model, again all buried in the tables, it gets old, they always want it both ways. And don't worry, I have alot more to say about dating systems.
Choose just one of your allegations and provide peer reviewed links supporting it.

That shouldn't be hard. Your initial disclaimer above can be ignored. You don't wriggle out that easily.

In the meantime, I will arbitrarily choose just one of your allegations and show why its false.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94827 Jul 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact is any 5th grader can be convinced that long-age isochon dating is a failed blunderbust of non-science.
Fact is, anybody of any age can be convinced of something if they only hear distortions, but are unaware that they are distortions. Perhaps even YOU.

Isochron dating gives concordant ages within the limits of statistical error in the vast majority of cases where the samples are known to be undisturbed.
It's so bad that none of my geo professors would consider using them on this issue in my undergrad, pretty telling to me. Go to school and find out for yourself, it's geo 102.
That school would be the Robert Jones Creation University I presume.
The isochron's false each other and don't make any sense to correlate even in the strata vs the column.
Back it up.
What are they then? Parent and Daughter decay isotopes with long half-lives that appear related. This was a major obstacle and the nuc physicists on the rate team were direct about it. We found using the same 4 major tests on the same rock sample's provided wildly differing age results IF, and I say IF, the sample's were given to multiple labs in blind.
And IF and I say IF they were really samples from exactly the same piece of rock and IF the rock suffered no intrusions etc and IF the discordance was in excess of the dating methods and IF the samples were not at the extreme effective ranges of the respective dating methods.

Verify all of the above and you might have a point.
The dates are also upside down (and always have been) in the G canyon, which should be your best model, again all buried in the tables, it gets old, they always want it both ways. And don't worry,
False. There are certain portions of the Canyon that have clearly experienced some folding, but that is not difficult to spot. Nor difficult to understand. In general, the Canyon provides ages consistent with conventional geology.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#94828 Jul 2, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and thank you for making my point.
You had a point??? Who knew?
Robert Stevens wrote:
You're a drone in the universe.
Perhaps. However, drones do serve a purpose. You, on the other hand...
Robert Stevens wrote:
Tell me what becomes of you 99+% of time. It is od you spend it online. Such a small existence. Afterall you do know yourself as all others do.
My *JOB* is monitoring and coordinating one of the largest educational networks in the country. Which, as you might expect, requires me to be at a computer all day long. You clowns are just a diversion from a generally boring day. Much like whack-a-mole.

And since you've asked, the rest of the time I do tons of volunteer work, serve as a director of a racing organization and, from time to time, perform on stage.

So my existence is no where near as small as you seem to think. But that's the kind of thinking I expect from small people such as yourself.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#94829 Jul 2, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"No single Adam or Eve."
You cannot say this.
You could trace back to Noah but not past Noah and his family. That's as far back as your bottle neck could go.
"No talking snake or donkey."
Impossible to prove. Were you there?
Didn't think so.
"No world-wide flood."
Lots of evidence of a WWF, I will save the readers of 10,000+ postings showing just a fraction of the proof of the WWF.
"The sun did not stand still in the sky for a full day."
Why? Because you say so? Arrogance!
__________
Your 3 BIG Myths:
1) the Big Bang when nothing exploded
and created everything.
2) rain falling on rocks and settling in a mud puddle and spontaneous self generating life sprang forth.
3) plants evolving into plant eating animals.
And when I snap my fingers you will wake up and believe these 3 myths as if they were fact.
"SNAP"
Massive stupidity.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#94830 Jul 2, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Then like I said "Tell you what SubZone. Lets both get on top of a 3 story building. Me with a 22 rifle and you with a handful of 22 bullets. We will set a target down below and I will bet you $100 dollars per bullet the one I shoot will hit the ground or target before the bullet you drop does. We can make this bet as manybets/times I will fly to where you are at.
WTF???
RedHorseRevelati on

AOL

#94831 Jul 2, 2013
.

ANTICHRIST ..on world stage

http://youtu.be/n7ok0g8iwJI

.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94832 Jul 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF???
Somebody offered a lesson in basic physics that went horribly wrong.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#94833 Jul 2, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Somebody offered a lesson in basic physics that went horribly wrong.
Evidently. Sheesh!

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94835 Jul 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you expect anyone to believe you when you make such blatant lies.
<quoted text>
Nope, more lies. Or complete idiocy on your part.
The first Moon dust estimate was off by orders of magnitude. There is no problem with Moon dust. You are getting your "science" from lying creatard sources. What sediments? Are you talking about those on the bottom of the ocean? You are truly an ignorant fool. Look at my user name.
<quoted text>
Even more lies from a hopeless idiot. Plus you broke the rule on the Gish Gallop. If you want to make a list like this all it takes to debunk the whole list is to show that one item is wrong. Do you want to play that game?
I will give you another chance. Bring these up one at a time until you are tired. I will show you how each and every claim is wrong. Or if you bring the list up I will debunk it by choosing the one I want to debunk.
Your wrong SZ, I knew one of the heli pilots that trained the lander astronauts, they we scared to death they would be dealing many feet of dust, hence the big skis that were not needed. Just a few inches were there, you see the moon has not been around that long. Your side is covering up.

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
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 2 min Camilla 10,583
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 20 min honeymylove 33,638
Messages: Inbox (Jul '10) 24 min Big Time 30
News Mystic man claims he can tell woman's fortune b... 33 min Spotted Girl 1
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 41 min oddie 20,106
What is your weakness? (Jan '14) 41 min Big Time 295
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 58 min Princess Hey 200,694
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr 8541 MARINE 61,373
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 2 hr Princess Hey 147,148
2words into 2new words (May '12) 7 hr GLEN CARTER 5,017
News Police Respond To St. Cloud Mall On Reports Of ... 7 hr Newt G s Next Wife 128
More from around the web