Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173872 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.

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#98534 Aug 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Procreation is not to be confused with CREATION!
Medical Dictionary (notice 2)

procreate pro·cre·ate (pr&#333;'kr&#275;- &#257;t')
v. pro·cre·at·ed , pro·cre·at·ing , pro·cre·ates

1. To beget and conceive offspring; to reproduce.

2. To produce or create; originate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/procre...
drink The hive

Anonymous Proxy

#98535 Aug 24, 2013
Hasid Who Allegedly Molested Elderly Man In Hospital Asks Victim, "Are U Jewish?" - Before Molesting Him
The Elderly Victim Answered…

"Atheist."

NY Daily News Report'...

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/happy-jewish-g...
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98536 Aug 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>It wasn't a cop out idiot. It was an honest answer.

As a lying creatard I know that you are not used to honesty.
You claim you don't know but it can't be bla bla bla. Why? No prove only admitting you don't know how and still so adamant that it could not be God.

You must at this point agree that time does look like an impossibility form the science view point.

And then the usual closing snide comment. So classy, sometimes it gets pretty hard to tell the difference between you and booby
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98537 Aug 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>You have yet to name one "real obstacle".
Time
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98538 Aug 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong.

The burden of proof is upon the person making the positive claim.

You seem to be claiming that God made a "mature earth", whatever that is supposed to be. To me it seems you are implying that your god is a lying god.

You have been shown what was wrong in the Bible. You did not address any of it except to deny it. Once again, if you can't fight evidence with evidence of your own you lose.

Again, a site with over 400 contradictions in the Bible:

http://www.bibviz.com/
"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.

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#98539 Aug 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Medical Dictionary (notice 2)
procreate pro·cre·ate (pr&#333;'kr&#275;- &#257;t')
v. pro·cre·at·ed , pro·cre·at·ing , pro·cre·ates
1. To beget and conceive offspring; to reproduce.
2. To produce or create; originate.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/procre...
Exactly, procreation is not the same as creationism.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98540 Aug 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Time is not evidence for or against god.
Other then the fact is in no way can science explain it.

It cannot pop into existence without breaking the laws of phthisic's
Unless it was created before the laws of physic's.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98541 Aug 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Most regular people on earth and most scientists believe the world/universe to be Billions of years old.

You come to me and say, "the earth/universe is only 6,000 (or whatever) years old"

I say to you, Bulsh!t....that's crazy, you can't prove that.

"where's the bee' umm. err..where's the proof???"

[QUOTE]Show me your proof of what is incorrect in the Bible."

That 'short' proofs have been shown many many times on this forum. I believe I gave you a healthy list of science sites myself, not long ago.

The proofs have to be read on a science site, and you have to make a commitment to learn because the information is VERY long and VERY involved. I've spent years learning it.

However, you being a creationist and all, I know you will never learn any of it because you want to preserve your precious ignorance.
"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.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98542 Aug 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly, procreation is not the same as creationism.
Is fire alive?

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#98543 Aug 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Exactly, procreation is not the same as creationism.
Never said it was. I said almost 90 million people where created from their parents that where born today
Mary

Allentown, PA

#98544 Aug 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
So far this year there have been roughly 90 million people created from their parents.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population...
Very interesting live graph, thanks for posting this.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98545 Aug 24, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim you don't know but it can't be bla bla bla. Why? No prove only admitting you don't know how and still so adamant that it could not be God.
You must at this point agree that time does look like an impossibility form the science view point.
And then the usual closing snide comment. So classy, sometimes it gets pretty hard to tell the difference between you and booby
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?

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.

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#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.

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#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

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) 3 min Paisley_Posey 43,748
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 11 min DILF 9,501
Word association (Jun '07) 13 min DILF 3,682
Word Association (Jun '10) 14 min DILF 28,921
Word Association. (Nov '10) 15 min DILF 18,083
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 16 min DILF 32,751
Word Association (Mar '10) 18 min DILF 18,183
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 20 min Sublime1 169,505
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 22 min DILF 13,352
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 24 min DILF 2,506
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 2 hr Spirit67_ 29,737
More from around the web