Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216623 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98546 Aug 24, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"The burden of proof is upon the person making the positive claim."
Yup that's why I'm asking for proof that it could not be that God created a mature earth and universe. He claimed he didn't. A positive assertion.
Against a possibility.
There is nothing wrong with the bible.
Idiot, did you notice the word "not" in your rrequest? The wrod "not" is a negative. That would make that a .... come on, your brain can figure it out if you try hard enough..

By the way who claimed "he" didn't?

I have always wondered why creationists believe in a lying god, or is there some reason that the Earth is made to look like it is billions of years old?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98547 Aug 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Exactly, procreation is not the same as creationism.
I think that replaytime may have noticed that all of the other creatards are idiots and he is practicing being one.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#98548 Aug 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot, did you notice the word "not" in your rrequest? The wrod "not" is a negative. That would make that a .... come on, your brain can figure it out if you try hard enough..
By the way who claimed "he" didn't?
I have always wondered why creationists believe in a lying god, or is there some reason that the Earth is made to look like it is billions of years old?
When Christians and atheists debate the question "Does God exist?" atheists usually assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian. This is not true. As Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative (such as Does God exist?) is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof. This is unlike debating a proposition such as "God does exist," where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side. It follows then that when debating the question of God's existence, both the Christian and the atheist are obligated to provide support for their position. The Christian should insist that the atheist provide proof as to God's alleged nonexistence. That puts the atheist into a logical bind.

Craig may be technically correct, assuming that both sides agree upon the meaning of "God." The atheist who denies this proposition is saying that a being with all the qualities that define God does not, in all probability, exist. That's a positive statement about the real world. Among other things, it implies that no matter where we look we will never find God. Evidence is needed. We might call this the "strong" or "assertive" position for atheism. The theist, of course, is saying that there is good evidence that such a being exists. Again, that's a positive statement requiring support. In Craig's example both sides have a burden of proof, though not necessarily equal.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#98549 Aug 24, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"Most regular people on earth and most scientists believe the world/universe to be Billions of years old."
A long long time ago people believed the earth was the center of the universe.
So all this means is a lot if people are wrong.
A long time ago we didn't have the scientific abilities we have now.

A long time ago most Western civilizations were controlled by religions and they kind of put a damper on some kinds of knowledge.

The earth being the center of the universe was a myth promoted by the church because God loved us and we were 'special'

Of course we now know that that wasn't the case at all.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98550 Aug 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
When Christians and atheists debate the question "Does God exist?" atheists usually assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian. This is not true. As Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative (such as Does God exist?) is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof. This is unlike debating a proposition such as "God does exist," where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side. It follows then that when debating the question of God's existence, both the Christian and the atheist are obligated to provide support for their position. The Christian should insist that the atheist provide proof as to God's alleged nonexistence. That puts the atheist into a logical bind.
Craig may be technically correct, assuming that both sides agree upon the meaning of "God." The atheist who denies this proposition is saying that a being with all the qualities that define God does not, in all probability, exist. That's a positive statement about the real world. Among other things, it implies that no matter where we look we will never find God. Evidence is needed. We might call this the "strong" or "assertive" position for atheism. The theist, of course, is saying that there is good evidence that such a being exists. Again, that's a positive statement requiring support. In Craig's example both sides have a burden of proof, though not necessarily equal.
William Lane Craig has no authority when it comes to this sort of debate. The only reason he makes that lame claim is that he is at least honest enough to admit that his side has no evidence.

Try to think logically for a second, what evidence would there be of a god NOT existing?

And worse yet for Christians, not only do they need to supply evidence that a god exists. They need to provide evidence that their particular god is the one that exists.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#98551 Aug 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
William Lane Craig has no authority when it comes to this sort of debate. The only reason he makes that lame claim is that he is at least honest enough to admit that his side has no evidence.
Try to think logically for a second, what evidence would there be of a god NOT existing?
And worse yet for Christians, not only do they need to supply evidence that a god exists. They need to provide evidence that their particular god is the one that exists.
Funny you say that. It comes from a site you posted. The link you provided of the Self contradictions in the bible also has that information on it.

http://etb-agnosticism.blogspot.com/
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98552 Aug 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Idiot, I have never said that it cannot be God. There is no valid reason to believe it was started by God. I will leave it as an exercise for you to figure out why.

No, time does not look like an impossibility. You must have your head firmly stuck up your rectum today. Why do you keep making such idiotic statements?
Science:
Time started with the Big Bang
The Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago.
Nothing can exist with out time
Nothing can happen with out time.
Yet some how Time happened into existence when there was no time
A bit of a paradox.

God:
In the beginning.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#98553 Aug 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
When Christians and atheists debate the question "Does God exist?" atheists usually assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian. This is not true. As Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative (such as Does God exist?) is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof. This is unlike debating a proposition such as "God does exist," where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side. It follows then that when debating the question of God's existence, both the Christian and the atheist are obligated to provide support for their position. The Christian should insist that the atheist provide proof as to God's alleged nonexistence. That puts the atheist into a logical bind.
Craig may be technically correct, assuming that both sides agree upon the meaning of "God." The atheist who denies this proposition is saying that a being with all the qualities that define God does not, in all probability, exist. That's a positive statement about the real world. Among other things, it implies that no matter where we look we will never find God. Evidence is needed. We might call this the "strong" or "assertive" position for atheism. The theist, of course, is saying that there is good evidence that such a being exists. Again, that's a positive statement requiring support. In Craig's example both sides have a burden of proof, though not necessarily equal.
When 70% of the world does not believe in your God, I think that puts the onus on the Christians to prove his/her beliefs.

However, we atheists have readily provided proofs and links to support our position, but you Christians have refused to learn about the proofs, or most often just refused to acknowledge that proofs exist.

The old 'Head In The Sand ' tactic.

Science is right, except when it conflicts with your religion....Catholics are the same way

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98554 Aug 24, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Science:
Time started with the Big Bang
The Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago.
Nothing can exist with out time
Nothing can happen with out time.
Yet some how Time happened into existence when there was no time
A bit of a paradox.
God:
In the beginning.
Not quite correct.

The furthest back our present science works is to shortly after the expansion that we call the "Big Bang" stared.

There may have been time before the Big Bang, there may not have. We don't know right now. Time may have come from some outside source or our universe may have been much

It is not a paradox if you don't put your false conclusions in there.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98555 Aug 24, 2013
-And if you try to claim that God had to somehow create the universe then I can claim some uber-God had to create God and an Uber-Uber-God created hims and so on and so forth. Isn't it a lot more likely that the universe has always existed in some form or other?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98556 Aug 24, 2013
And lastly if you move the debate back to the start of the universe you have already conceded defeat in the evolution debate. Cosmology is a TOTALLY different subject than evolution.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98558 Aug 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Idiot, did you notice the word "not" in your rrequest? The wrod "not" is a negative. That would make that a .... come on, your brain can figure it out if you try hard enough..

By the way who claimed "he" didn't?

I have always wondered why creationists believe in a lying god, or is there some reason that the Earth is made to look like it is billions of years old?
Yes there is a reason for an old earth.
I'll let you figure it out.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#98559 Aug 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
When 70% of the world does not believe in your God, I think that puts the onus on the Christians to prove his/her beliefs.
However, we atheists have readily provided proofs and links to support our position, but you Christians have refused to learn about the proofs, or most often just refused to acknowledge that proofs exist.
The old 'Head In The Sand ' tactic.
Science is right, except when it conflicts with your religion....Catholics are the same way
If God is supernatural and science examines the natural, then science (as it currently stands) cannot be used to prove or disprove God.

How can you measure a miracle? How can doctors or science explain healing that should not have been? How can science disprove the presence of God that so many say they have felt? What scientific tools do we have to prove or disprove any of these events?

If we think God can be proven by a man made system, then we clearly have a warped (and very human) sense of who God is (or would be) and the God we are looking for is not one who made man, but one that man made.

Additionally, how can you prove God doesn't exist when you don't know what His properties are to test? What kind of test can you run against an element that you think doesn't exist?
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98561 Aug 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>A long time ago we didn't have the scientific abilities we have now.

A long time ago most Western civilizations were controlled by religions and they kind of put a damper on some kinds of knowledge.

The earth being the center of the universe was a myth promoted by the church because God loved us and we were 'special'

Of course we now know that that wasn't the case at all.
Science knows less then 2% of the universe. Don't you agree you're a bit vain To be making the claims you do with only a 2% knowledge level.
roly poly

Franklin, KY

#98562 Aug 24, 2013
Huh wrote:
I can see the almighty tzar is just a liar and moron. PROVE YOUR RELIGION AND GOD ARE REAL OR SHUT UP FREAK.
I agree, anyone claiming religion as the answer to life has the burden of proof on their shoulders. Get with it bible thumpers and show some please! Otherwise, shut up and let the people researching the origins of life do their work. You're certainly not doing anything to further your cause.
roly poly

Franklin, KY

#98563 Aug 24, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Science knows less then 2% of the universe. Don't you agree you're a bit vain To be making the claims you do with only a 2% knowledge level.
How do you know it's 2%?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#98564 Aug 24, 2013
View this video, it is only 34 seconds long. I have seen far less damaging crashes that the person died. This guy is hit by a semi broadside, thrown back into the path of the recording vehicle he was passing and hit again. He walks away seemingly not hurt. To me that is a miracle he survived from the damage done to his car, which is half or less its normal size. The roof of the car looks to be compressed to around a foot wide. No we can say he is lucky but the odds of that luck happening the same again are astronomical.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#98565 Aug 24, 2013
roly poly wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know it's 2%?
I can get it down to 4% for you.

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

http://www.space.com/11642-dark-matter-dark-e...
roly poly

Franklin, KY

#98566 Aug 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
View this video, it is only 34 seconds long. I have seen far less damaging crashes that the person died. This guy is hit by a semi broadside, thrown back into the path of the recording vehicle he was passing and hit again. He walks away seemingly not hurt. To me that is a miracle he survived from the damage done to his car, which is half or less its normal size. The roof of the car looks to be compressed to around a foot wide. No we can say he is lucky but the odds of that luck happening the same again are astronomical.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =pzvItZYxWzIXX
What's a miracle is such an idiot has survived for so long with such bad driving habits.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#98567 Aug 24, 2013
roly poly wrote:
<quoted text>
What's a miracle is such an idiot has survived for so long with such bad driving habits.
You assume he has bad driving habits. This may have been his first accident. The road conditions may have contributed to the accident. To claim he is a bad driver then the evidence of that claim lies upon you to show that evidence.

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
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... (Nov '14) 2 min wichita-rick 2,030
Let's play "follow the word" (Jun '08) 3 min Bezeer 48,249
Word Association (Mar '10) 6 min Bezeer 21,605
Add a Word remove a Word (Oct '13) 7 min Bezeer 4,781
The letter E (Jun '13) 8 min Bezeer 1,268
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 9 min Bezeer 6,599
Answer a question with a question (Apr '15) 13 min Knock off purse s... 3,774
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 23 min wichita-rick 206,900
News Church fined $12,000 for helping homeless new 42 min Knock off purse s... 40
News Trump's bizarre claim that the Clinton email co... 1 hr WasteWater 978
All Christmas Carols/Songs and Quotes.. 2 hr greymouser 43
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr Snowflake Nation 67,091
More from around the web