Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173788 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.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#94890 Jul 3, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
No making anyting up. I have spent a few weeks in the canyon. Never heard of or seen any lit on intra-layer erosion. They preach "multiplle placent seas" at the visitor center. Again, look at the crosssection in the wiki great unconformity link. You have nothing but horizontally deposity water-bourn sediments sorted between limestone shales and sanstones. There are 2 magma intrutions, one at the bottom and one fresh one over the canyon lip.
After all this was layed down in the flood year, it had not lithified yet. There was a natural backwater lake to the north of Page, trapped by the kaibab upwarp,(the origanol lakeshore indicates it was larger than all the great lakes combined). This natural dam overflowed near page and ripped out the canyons then soft sediments to form what we see today. In time it all lithified. A simalar event occured @ ST helens also leaving sorted layers that appear the same as the GC but in 1/40 scale.
None of this explains the wind-formed Coconino Sandstone between the Hermit Shale and Toroweap Formation. A makes no sense to say that the canyon is the result of a single flood event with the miraculous presence of a formation whose origins are not water formed. In addition, how do you explain the tunneling in the Tapeats Sandstone? Surely you aren't going to claim that marine organisms were going about there business under the pressure of a global flood.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#94891 Jul 3, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
What I mean is chemicals have no mind and then must be self-directed to create life if not directed by intelligence. Reason and logic demand that complexity doesn't come about by accident and chance. We enjoy operational science that provides all the gadgets we use to make life simpler, but somehow we then at the same time throw out reason, experience and Logic then switch when we view the natural world, even though we have no means to replicate its colossal complexity as humans. I see a jet and say man made it, in the same moment a bird flys by that in many ways schools the jet and we reason it has no maker?
Actually wishful thinking demands this. Having designed things ourselves does not mean that life was designed. It is sentimental to think so for some, but it is not evidence that a designer exists. This is an old argument. The bird is not reasoned to have no maker. That it exists based on the process of evolution is based on evidence. The plane is designed by man based on observation of the bird.

You are appealing to incredulity I believe.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#94892 Jul 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Honestly.....I don't see how he can take you flud chasers seriously. The flood myth has been shown to be false for at least a 100 years, how you nincompoops can still be insisting it happened is a 5 alarm fire of stupidity.
The very first problem nobody ever talks about , completely falsifies it from the jump. So here it is.
The flood supposedly was made to happen because man was wicked and evil. The main purpose was to destroy the evil menz.
Now show us anywhere in the strata at any level where there is a mass extinction of humans, it would be there.
We see it for the dinosaurs, and we saw it with mammals such as the woolly mammoth. But nowhere do you find a mass extinction of humans from a flood. This should be a world wide layer, and in that specific layer dead humans, as well as all other creatures.
So far you got zip.
No smoking gun = nothing to go all biblical boneheaded about.
I hope I am wrong because I would like to see what answer he comes up with, but I bet your point will go unanswered.

“Robert Stevens”

Level 1

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#94893 Jul 3, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You're correct.
We cannot PROVE that there is a Creator, any more than you can prove there IS one.
What we have MASSIVE evidence for is that the Creation stories (as well as many of the tall tales told in Genesis and Exodus) are mythology, without base.
No single Adam or Eve.
No talking snake or donkey.
No world-wide flood.
The sun did not stand still in the sky for a full day.
Jonah did not live in the belly of a 'great fish' for 3 days.
...and so on.
July 3, 2013 on Planet Earth is a miracle and that is enough proof for me. If you really know science, unless you're not just committed to disagree or you find your existence to suck, or you do know yourself and you do know soon your time is up, you will know there is a Perfect One.

“Robert Stevens”

Level 1

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#94894 Jul 3, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>there is no evidence whatsoever of a creator. not one shred...
I find it sad you just can't see it. I can't argue with you I do believe we all do know ourselves.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#94895 Jul 3, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it sad you just can't see it. I can't argue with you I do believe we all do know ourselves.
You're right.

You can't argue.(shrug)

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#94896 Jul 3, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it sad you just can't see it. I can't argue with you I do believe we all do know ourselves.

I know myself, why wouldn't anybody know themselves?
Brain lock?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#94897 Jul 3, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
July 3, 2013 on Planet Earth is a miracle and that is enough proof for me. If you really know science, unless you're not just committed to disagree or you find your existence to suck, or you do know yourself and you do know soon your time is up, you will know there is a Perfect One.
Translated: "Flowers are purty, puppies are kwewt, therefore Goddidit."

I find wonder and amazement in my personal life and within nature. I *DO* have a spiritual side, and often wonder privately to myself if there IS a "Supreme Deity" responsible for it all.

But I cannot bring myself to believe in the cartoon version of a god that is represented in the Bible. Especially the one depicted in Genesis.

If there IS a loving, all-knowing God, He/She/It knows my heart, and my actions. I will trust upon Him/Her/It to judge me accordingly at that time.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#94898 Jul 3, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Translated: "Flowers are purty, puppies are kwewt, therefore Goddidit."
I find wonder and amazement in my personal life and within nature. I *DO* have a spiritual side, and often wonder privately to myself if there IS a "Supreme Deity" responsible for it all.
But I cannot bring myself to believe in the cartoon version of a god that is represented in the Bible. Especially the one depicted in Genesis.
If there IS a loving, all-knowing God, He/She/It knows my heart, and my actions. I will trust upon Him/Her/It to judge me accordingly at that time.
There is a God and she understands all of our thoughts and actions. The God represented in the bible is not a good indication of the true nature of God. Times were very primitive when the bible was written and God had to adapt to it. Her character though will never change, she is a "God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he". God will judge all of us according to our moral character and if it wasn't for her infinite mercy, none of us would pass the test.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94899 Jul 3, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>None of this explains the wind-formed Coconino Sandstone between the Hermit Shale and Toroweap Formation. A makes no sense to say that the canyon is the result of a single flood event with the miraculous presence of a formation whose origins are not water formed. In addition, how do you explain the tunneling in the Tapeats Sandstone? Surely you aren't going to claim that marine organisms were going about there business under the pressure of a global flood.
I have seen Coconino-image depositions within the Tapeats, angled patterns and all, very conform and very much water deposited. Its still a sandstone - sand dunes don't homaginize well, no more than lithify into concrete hard structures without water and 'lime'.

Take the Cottonwood trail down to the creek and follow it down, you will see both. I am a novice to the canyon, but had guides that have over 25 years working there. Don't know about tunnels, sorry.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94900 Jul 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

We are well aware that oxygen levels were higher at times in the past, and the climate supportive of more lush flora and fauna, almost to the poles.

However, your suggestion that even super oxygen levels could compress the required thousands of feet of crinoids and other deposits into a year or a few years is absurd. You could accelerate the growth rate by 100x and still not get even close to fitting the deposits into the >6000 year window you are suggesting.
<quoted text>

Your math is way out, if you think all this could be accounted for by sudden death of any amount of life at one time. For example, do you realise you could pile all 7 billion humans alive today into about a cubic mile? That should offer some perspective! Perhaps you should read his stats on the Crinoids again.
<quoted text>
Because the Grand Canyon Supergroup is composed of Proterozoic rock, of course. There are precious few fossils of any kind in the world prior to the Cambrian. So what would you expect?
<quoted text>
In fact he discusses fossil fish eating other fish etc. But I think you are confusing that period with the superfine laminate periods in which there is evidence of burrowing, but not fish remains crossing many of those layers simultaneously.
Anyway, thanks for reading it.
Wish i could truncate like you folks, so i will just get to it -

On the the GC supergroup, I think you summarized all too quickly. I spent some time in there. Lets be honest, if the world was formed out of water and with water in the beginning, with no evolution involved - isn't reasonable that this is a remnant of the first sediment crustal layers that man lived on? Further, it being parallel to the fractured tilt of the crustal granites below it, this structure is all remnant of the first world before the crustal breakup the Bible mentions? You see to me it fit's perfectly, if I was to ask for a proof formation system inserted into the Grand C in relation to the GU and the position of the overburden that's fossilized- its perfect. Way to many concurrent structure's to ignore and massive in scale at that. More later.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94901 Jul 3, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I have seen Coconino-image depositions within the Tapeats, angled patterns and all, very conform and very much water deposited. Its still a sandstone - sand dunes don't homaginize well, no more than lithify into concrete hard structures without water and 'lime'.
Take the Cottonwood trail down to the creek and follow it down, you will see both. I am a novice to the canyon, but had guides that have over 25 years working there. Don't know about tunnels, sorry.
No, you are very uneducated if you make that claim.

There is no doubt about the Coconino being a terrestrial deposit. Not only are the sands crossbedded as they would be in a land deposit and not in a marine deposit, the grains also show the frosting from wind blown collisions not the smooth faces of water borne deposits.

I need to emphasize the importance of real peer reviewed articles.

When you submit an article for peer review they try to tear it apart. They look for any flaw. The least flaw found will cause the paper to be sent back for editing.

You have submitted no peer reviewed science for your beliefs. Creation "scientists" avoid peer review because they know that all of their mistakes would be brought to light.

That is the act of someone who knows that they are guilty of not telling the truth. Especially among scientists that have had some of their papers published when they were in their own, non-creation specialties.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94902 Jul 3, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You are making a claim, but what is the evidence here? What are these out of sequence fossils and where are they? What is it about the Grand Canyon that it fails to support the conclusions of Geology?
Now you have previously failed to answer my questions, so I don't expect that to change. It is a paradigm I have become used to. Meaning you are the first young earther to do this.
DFS, have a day job and also working to answer other posters delayed me here so hold on;

The Silurian and Ordovician are missing in the Canyon. It jumps from trilobites to nautaloids. The nautaloid findings are interesting because most all found are of the same age. Hardly a good snapshot of how evolution should work over mil/y. They also often orient in s particular direction while they were trapped - current flow in a placid sea?

Dating of the lava flows is contradictory -

http://www.icr.org/article/282/

Good overview showing the coco formation structures -

http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/grca/...

Good luck

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94903 Jul 3, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
DFS, have a day job and also working to answer other posters delayed me here so hold on;
The Silurian and Ordovician are missing in the Canyon. It jumps from trilobites to nautaloids. The nautaloid findings are interesting because most all found are of the same age. Hardly a good snapshot of how evolution should work over mil/y. They also often orient in s particular direction while they were trapped - current flow in a placid sea?
Dating of the lava flows is contradictory -
http://www.icr.org/article/282/
Good overview showing the coco formation structures -
http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/grca/...
Good luck
ICR is not a valid source. It is not peer reviewed science.

Yes, there is an unconformity and the Silurian and Ordovician are missing. Why do you think this is a problem? Areas can be raised and lowered over geologic history. Some have had it happen several times.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94904 Jul 3, 2013
Uh oh SBT. You used a lying source again:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.h...

"Summary
The ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project does not strike a telling blow against the reliability of isochron dating. The conditions which caused the "false isochron" in this case are fairly well-understood, and easy to avoid by proper sample selection. In fact, the resulting age in this case may well be meaningful and accurate. The problem is not the age itself but rather Austin's sleight-of-hand in trying to pass off the result as necessarily the age of the flows rather than a minimum age of their source.

The attempt to abuse the meaning of a single contrived date -- which was produced only by a sample selection geared to dating a different event, and only for samples whose results were known by Austin in advance -- says a lot more about the level of competence or honesty in this creation "science" research program, than it says about the validity of isochron dating methods.

Even if given credit for discovering this case (which he clearly doesn't deserve, as his use of Leeman's data proves), Austin has only managed to "call into question" a particular sampling technique. However, this sampling technique was known by mainstream geologists to behave in this manner long before Austin published on the topic, and this behavior is often intentionally used by geologists. Austin was aware of this, as his 1988 reference to Faure shows."

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#94905 Jul 3, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I have seen Coconino-image depositions within the Tapeats, angled patterns and all, very conform and very much water deposited. Its still a sandstone - sand dunes don't homaginize well, no more than lithify into concrete hard structures without water and 'lime'.
Take the Cottonwood trail down to the creek and follow it down, you will see both. I am a novice to the canyon, but had guides that have over 25 years working there. Don't know about tunnels, sorry.
No legitimate geologist considers them to be water deposited. It must be a conspiracy.

The tunneling is fossilized evidence of marine animals. According to your belief, they had time to work around in the sediment and apparently thrive while under the pressure of a tremendous water column. This evidence doesn't fit your belief-based version, but fits the accepted geological model.
Anonymous

Lynchburg, VA

#94906 Jul 3, 2013
test

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#94907 Jul 3, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
DFS, have a day job and also working to answer other posters delayed me here so hold on;
The Silurian and Ordovician are missing in the Canyon. It jumps from trilobites to nautaloids. The nautaloid findings are interesting because most all found are of the same age. Hardly a good snapshot of how evolution should work over mil/y. They also often orient in s particular direction while they were trapped - current flow in a placid sea?
Dating of the lava flows is contradictory -
http://www.icr.org/article/282/
Good overview showing the coco formation structures -
http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/grca/...
Good luck
I don't know if I need luck or a drink to believe this stuff.
If the canyon formed as the result of draining rapidly receeding flood waters, why isn't it straigher? Why is there only one canyon like this in the world?

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#94908 Jul 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Uh oh SBT. You used a lying source again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.h...
"Summary
The ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project does not strike a telling blow against the reliability of isochron dating. The conditions which caused the "false isochron" in this case are fairly well-understood, and easy to avoid by proper sample selection. In fact, the resulting age in this case may well be meaningful and accurate. The problem is not the age itself but rather Austin's sleight-of-hand in trying to pass off the result as necessarily the age of the flows rather than a minimum age of their source.
The attempt to abuse the meaning of a single contrived date -- which was produced only by a sample selection geared to dating a different event, and only for samples whose results were known by Austin in advance -- says a lot more about the level of competence or honesty in this creation "science" research program, than it says about the validity of isochron dating methods.
Even if given credit for discovering this case (which he clearly doesn't deserve, as his use of Leeman's data proves), Austin has only managed to "call into question" a particular sampling technique. However, this sampling technique was known by mainstream geologists to behave in this manner long before Austin published on the topic, and this behavior is often intentionally used by geologists. Austin was aware of this, as his 1988 reference to Faure shows."
SBT's posts on here remind me of a huckster politician or a bad used car salesman. His posts have the feeling of a straffing. Like he arrives here in a hurry, blasts out his spiel and rushes off. I half expect him to ask me if I am interested in Amway. He throws in a lot of technical trimmings, but I am not seeing any meat in this sandwhich.

He blows off the fact that the Coconino sandstone is formed from sand dunes and bears the characters one would expect from such a formation. No massive flood could make the canyon in one year long event and include that formation. There is no evidence I can find that legitimately supports it being water-formed. I haven't checked his links yet.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94909 Jul 3, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>SBT's posts on here remind me of a huckster politician or a bad used car salesman. His posts have the feeling of a straffing. Like he arrives here in a hurry, blasts out his spiel and rushes off. I half expect him to ask me if I am interested in Amway. He throws in a lot of technical trimmings, but I am not seeing any meat in this sandwhich.
He blows off the fact that the Coconino sandstone is formed from sand dunes and bears the characters one would expect from such a formation. No massive flood could make the canyon in one year long event and include that formation. There is no evidence I can find that legitimately supports it being water-formed. I haven't checked his links yet.
I did check one in this last list and quickly debunked it.

Soon my only response will be to point out that we already debunked all of his claims.

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) 5 min Wolftracks 43,695
Words that annoy you? 7 min Words 16
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 9 min SweLL GirL 5,906
words with all five vowels 9 min KNIGHT DeVINE 1
I Like..... (Mar '14) 11 min Fat Joe 1,288
Poll Would you live in a boarding house? 11 min Username 2
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 12 min SweLL GirL 29,529
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 15 min KNIGHT DeVINE 13,343
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 34 min Spirit67_ 29,727
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 37 min Wolftracks 169,473
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 3 hr Parden Pard 2,497
More from around the web