Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216897 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.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#98935 Aug 28, 2013
Tinka wrote:
malar hey?
I despise enemies if I had them I would despise them that is...
What an Enemy to one's own state of mind could be?
Not to let it become so...malerei und Tusche farben to one's eye some still have not for got something too...
Oh well if you were painted ai I mean if you were to paint something you could use your fingers and toes too...
MAn lucjy uhhh maybe I am a bit sleepy seems my spelling is getting off...
Tinka's Back!!!! Hi Tinka!!!

I see it's mushroom season again. Happy Random Typing!

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#98936 Aug 28, 2013
Seek Truth wrote:
White powder per dream
rail Road Underground steel metal white powder everywhere
Clean and vacuum companies
Earthquake and God EUREKA
14fTd8 12-318DF??????
.

Wow. I guess it really IS mushroom season.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#98937 Aug 28, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim to be the expert on time and space. Your biggest thing is singularity! Maybe time and space already existed long before the big bang but got compressed smaller (like going from one end of the hour glass to the other. The smallness it has to cross to become into largeness again) and time was still there, just slowed. Maybe the big bang was space re-expanding again. Then there would be no singularity now would there? If you think it is not a possibility, show evidence.
There are a lot of maybe's Replay, there is no solid proof. Just look at string theory -maybe there are multiple universes - infinite universes. I'm not qualified to argue the possibilites, nor would I even attempt to do so. I CAN argue with the 6000-year-old-Earth theory, which is the creation argument that people keep avoiding, and try to spin it back to "Prove the BBT". I would not ask someone to prove that God exisits - it can't be done. But I invite you to prove some of the Biblical fables. That would be a good start.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#98938 Aug 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Not unless you have a tail, I don't have a tail, but it would be pretty cool to have one.
I think it would be awsome having a tail. Especially one that could hold a beer mug - we'd be complete.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#98939 Aug 28, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Then show the facts that the scientific theory has and the facts that they are based off of. That should be simple for you to do!
First fact - red shift. Discovered in the 1920s, evidence that the galaxies are racing away from each other (outside local clusters).

Still, not enough and the theory was not taken seriously just because of red shift. However, the BB also made a critical prediction - that there should be a remnant cosmic background microwave radiation.

When this was discovered in the 1960s, the BB was taken seriously as a theory. After all, it had made a startling prediction that turned out to be true (much as evolution's startling prediction that ape/hominid intermediates would be found was vindicated over the following decades!).

Since then a whole bunch of other more arcane evidences for the BB have been found as you will find if you look on wiki or elsewhere. Such as the current ratio of hydrogen, helium, and lithium...

In any case, this is enough to establish that the BB or something close to it (such as brane theory) is almost certainly how the universe unfolded. Just as in evolution, the quantity of independently converging evidence makes a far different alternative explanation extremely unlikely.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#98940 Aug 28, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it would be awsome having a tail. Especially one that could hold a beer mug - we'd be complete.
A trunk might work even better. We evolved from the wrong order!
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98941 Aug 28, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>"The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reported that pottery that dates back to 17,000-18,000 years ago in the Yuchanyan Cave in southern China has been found, making it among the earliest pottery yet found. According to Science, pottery dating from 20,000 years ago were also found at the Xianrendong Cave site, in Jiangxiprovince.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_ceramics

I've heard that some pottery in Japan has been dated to 17,000 to 18,000 Years ago.

Seems the peoples of the Pacific Rim (Japan, Korea, China) were years ahead of the Middle East
I have a vase that's dated 30,000 years old that I'll sell you.

Pay no attention to the made in Japan stamp on the bottom. We don't let facts get in the way of a good theory.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#98942 Aug 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a vase that's dated 30,000 years old that I'll sell you.
Pay no attention to the made in Japan stamp on the bottom. We don't let facts get in the way of a good theory.
So you're admitting that you a con artist.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#98943 Aug 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a vase that's dated 30,000 years old that I'll sell you.
Pay no attention to the made in Japan stamp on the bottom. We don't let facts get in the way of a good theory.
Because every well informed Sunday schooler knows creationmuseum.org is wa-ay more credible than nasonline.org

ROFL!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#98944 Aug 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a vase that's dated 30,000 years old that I'll sell you.
Pay no attention to the made in Japan stamp on the bottom. We don't let facts get in the way of a good theory.
We know you don't. That's because you're a reality-denying creationist liar for Jesus.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#98945 Aug 28, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
nice sentence structure...
nothing to add of substance?
any evidence to back up your BBT "facts" yet? pathetic shadow puppet
Wow.

You really are this dumb.

And I've been trying real hard to find a reason NOT to put you in the same bracket as the thick-as-a-board young Earth nuts.

You just aren't able to provide one.

:-/
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#98946 Aug 28, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I almost forgot. When you stop being a chicken I will educate you on singularities. The one thing you hold onto I can also refute.
What, when you become reincarnated as a worm?

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#98947 Aug 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
A trunk might work even better. We evolved from the wrong order!
Agreed, a trunk would be nice.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#98948 Aug 28, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed, a trunk would be nice.
The only problem with a huge nose , um is changing the human look drastically. You will be a alien in a bar in a star wars movie then...lol

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#98949 Aug 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of which, what's the "creation science" definition of "kind"?
Yup, just pretend you never got spanked, repro.
I have no clue how creationist define it. The links I gave for the definition of kind did not come from a creationist site. Swing and a miss but thanks for playing.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#98950 Aug 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The only problem with a huge nose , um is changing the human look drastically. You will be a alien in a bar in a star wars movie then...lol
It has the advantage over sitting on one's tail while driving, tho.
roly poly

Franklin, KY

#98951 Aug 28, 2013
All you bible believers make sure you give $1000 to Peter Popoff for some of his "miracle spring water" (tap water) so you can anoint yourself with it to receive your financial blessing and if you're lucky you'll get yourself a better seat in heaven!

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#98952 Aug 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
First fact - red shift. Discovered in the 1920s, evidence that the galaxies are racing away from each other (outside local clusters).
Still, not enough and the theory was not taken seriously just because of red shift. However, the BB also made a critical prediction - that there should be a remnant cosmic background microwave radiation.
When this was discovered in the 1960s, the BB was taken seriously as a theory. After all, it had made a startling prediction that turned out to be true (much as evolution's startling prediction that ape/hominid intermediates would be found was vindicated over the following decades!).
Since then a whole bunch of other more arcane evidences for the BB have been found as you will find if you look on wiki or elsewhere. Such as the current ratio of hydrogen, helium, and lithium...
In any case, this is enough to establish that the BB or something close to it (such as brane theory) is almost certainly how the universe unfolded. Just as in evolution, the quantity of independently converging evidence makes a far different alternative explanation extremely unlikely.
How do we not know time and space didn't already existed long before the BBT, collapsed in on itself and got compressed smaller (like going from one end of the hour glass to the other. The smallness in the bottle neck it has to cross to become into largeness again) space and time was still there, just slowed. Maybe the big bang was space re-expanding again. I am not saying this happened, but we never know.
roly poly

Franklin, KY

#98953 Aug 28, 2013
Or you can give $1000 to Michael Murdock so he can "plant your seed in heaven". HA HA HA what a laugh that you rubes will believe that mess!!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#98954 Aug 28, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no clue how creationist define it.
Yes we know. And neither do the creationists. And what's more, you did not know that they did not know, or you did know that they did not know and attempted to defend it anyway.

Predictably, you failed. Epic.
replaytime wrote:
The links I gave for the definition of kind did not come from a creationist site. Swing and a miss but thanks for playing.
You kidding? Home run, bub. It's too late, you threw yourself into play and you got batted outta here.

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
2words into 2new words (May '12) 23 min Mila Beaujolais 6,858
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 24 min Mila Beaujolais 45,788
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 25 min Mutant-cucumber 83,175
Start a sentence in alphabetical order.. 28 min Mila Beaujolais 1,713
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 37 min Mila Beaujolais 61,103
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 41 min Mila Beaujolais 5,869
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 43 min Mila Beaujolais 15,269
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 1 hr Poppyann 1,515
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 hr Poppyann 10,643
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Brandon 207,164
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Grace Nerissa 67,250
What Topics knows about you 6 hr _Susan_ 85
More from around the web