Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
94,281 - 94,300 of 115,105 Comments Last updated 6 min ago

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#99775 Sep 19, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
All of the things talked about are backed up by very solid circumstantial evidence.
You may not think circumstantial evidence is any good, but more then a few criminals were sent to prison or their deaths by it. Ask a cop....eyewitness testimony does not even compare to circumstantial evidence.
The most important assertion I made is that there was no Adam and Eve as written in the Bible. This has tremendous implication to current Christian dogma.
No Adam and Eve equals no 'original sin'. Also puts the lie to Jesus having mention them in the New Testament....one fictional character talking about 2 fictional characters from a Hebrew myth.
If there was no 'original sin', just exactly what was the mission of Jesus??
If one were able to read the story allegorically, it can make sense.

There was a time in human evolution before we were consciously aware of "right and wrong" and at some point in time became aware of it. Likewise we became aware of our own mortality...thus death "enters the world" when we become aware of what it really means in a way other animals do not. As death seems bad and bad things to a superstitious mind must be punishment for something (bad things could not happen unless we made the gods angry, and if the gods are angry they punish us and we must deserve it)....put two and two together.

Thus the ancients, ignorant of natural history but no doubt already wise in human psychology, framed a story that talked about our realisation of guilt and of death... "original sin".

But that is no reason to attribute any of this to a God or especially to take the creation story literally. On a poetic level, its a powerful story about our emergence from the innocence of pre-human consciousness.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#99776 Sep 19, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has it's absolutes that can be directly connected to claims made in theism communities. And that's been the fault of science. Kind of like the child telling a parent their incorrect and the parent's first reaction (even if the child is correct)is to state they aren't wrong.
The issue should never have been an intelligent being caused global flooding with science. Science should have have without prejudice analyzed if the earth could in fact flood itself globally. It never did that. It just basically stated without any real research all the water is on the earth's surface and the earth can't possibly globally flood itself.
Well new research is slowly coming to light that there is 'possibly' more water in the earth then there is on it. And evidence of drop stones showing where ice sheets once existed where science thought they didn't exist is revealing larger amounts of water existing anciently topside then which exists at present. wiki has a good article on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropstone
Point being this global flooding story doesn't have to be rooted in theism to be true or false. It could have actually happened with humans present that passed down stories of the event as it happened.
We don't know how far back our present human ancestry goes. But with each passing decade science pushes it back to an older and older date. So what humans have witnessed and passed down through stories the possibilities are endless at present. Just saying an open mind to possibilities is better than a shut mind closed to possibilities :)
This is some severe reaching. We have known about ice ages for a long time and we also know that they were accompanied by significant falls in the sea level. Thus the accumulated ice balanced by a fall in ocean volume.

And as pointed out earlier, Pangea was not the original supercontinent, if there even was one. Pangaea was one in a series of supercontinents that have come together and split apart repeatedly over the whole of earth's history. It formed 300 million years ago...so is recent by the standards of earth time.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#99777 Sep 19, 2013
forreal wrote:
<quoted text>Reproductive cycle? LOLOLOL a Mayfly has only 15 mins to mate and you cant evolve after that, the only thing is that you will see it die!!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL 24 hours that all.LOLOLOLOLOL who care about the eggs under the water streams they cant evolve or mate down there!LOLOLOLOLOLOL another jackass bites the floor!LOLOLOL
Creationist thinking of that calibre leaves me very confident.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99778 Sep 19, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The following was actually an opinion of mine based on something written 2500 plus years ago. It wasn't something I was 'claiming'.
Now what about the 'others'? Care to be more specific?
How about this one?
No Surprise wrote:
Did you know if water in the crust of the earth was forced up by volcanic action onto the surface of the earth the tallest mountain would be submerged in water? Research that science 101 as I'm sure you're in disbelief.
How about the Science 101 that backs this up?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#99779 Sep 19, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a glitch in the story for pro and con. Both sides are 'assuming' that the earth at the time of the flood looked than geographically as it looks today topside and sea floor wise.
That the world just somehow flooded itself without any physical trauma as in volcanic action/earthquakes.
The writer actually describes something they should not have even been able to have guessed correctly that science has shown actually takes place on the sea floors today. "...all the fountains of the great deep broken up,.." The writer is actually describing water being pushed up by volcanic action through the crust of the earth through the sea/ocean/lake floors to add more water to what already exists topside.
The point shouldn't be whether an invisible being caused this to take place. The point to be wondered about is how the writer was able to describe volcanic activity that takes place miles to thousands of feet below ocean and sea water levels. A volcanic heated vent on the ocean floor large or small spills out vast quantities of heated water. Volcanic vents on land don't usually do this in the same manner as on the oceans floors that this writer would have been privy to have seen to have written about. So how did they make a best guess and guess it correctly?
Because they didn't.

Underwater vents are cooled by the huge mass of surrounding water, but volcanos on land throw out lava and magma. If you claim that there's so much water being spewed out at such tremendous forces and quantities as to flood the entire world the water would evaporate as steam. What's more if you're claiming the entire world's geographical landscape changed along with it, then you are essentially frying the entire Earth.

Noah's boat is only made of wood.

If humanity was to have sprung only from his family (SERIOUS genetic issues aside) then quite literally there is no-one left alive on planet Eatrh today to talk about it.

Now we can get back to the issue of your invisible magic being. None of this is a problem for invisible magic wizardry. For when faced with an absence of, or contradicting evidence, simply invoke the magic wizard who waves his wand and fixes everything how your favourite religious book says it is.

Evidence does not matter.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#99780 Sep 19, 2013
spOko wrote:
<quoted text>
I may be a lot of things but stupid is not of them but why am I arguing with a f-ing moron who confuses space exploration with our solar system :-)
Not really, since our solar system IS in space.

Okay, granted if we take the entire universe into account it's not exactly going very far, but the term space exploration IS still accurate.
headlines

AOL

#99781 Sep 19, 2013
.

VATICAN -- ISRAEL debating **TEMPLE MOUNT

http://youtu.be/Qt9kEQB4ti8

.
Fisherman

Lanai City, HI

#99782 Sep 19, 2013
Here's a picture of human evolution-

http://firsttoknow.com/monsanto-wins-organic-...

(for some reason, it made me think of this thread- lol)
spOko

Oakland, CA

#99783 Sep 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell that to the Voyager, now leaving the solar system.
Very cute Forrest, Voyager is a robot and took 30 years to travel to edge of our solar system.
spOko

Oakland, CA

#99784 Sep 19, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really, since our solar system IS in space.
Okay, granted if we take the entire universe into account it's not exactly going very far, but the term space exploration IS still accurate.
Okay, that sounds reasonable enough :-)

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#99786 Sep 19, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>How did God come into existence?

And don't tell me he was always there....that makes no sense at all.

And of course you reply with...."Well, the 'Big Bang' makes no sense either."

And I rely, "impasse."

Thing is, although we don't know it all, we have all the facts and in over 150 years fundamentalists have been unable to disprove evolution....and because it is a fact they never will
"How did God come into existence?"

He didn't

Next

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#99787 Sep 19, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>How did God come into existence?

And don't tell me he was always there....that makes no sense at all.

And of course you reply with...."Well, the 'Big Bang' makes no sense either."

And I rely, "impasse."

Thing is, although we don't know it all, we have all the facts and in over 150 years fundamentalists have been unable to disprove evolution....and because it is a fact they never will
"And don't tell me he was always there....that makes no sense at all."

To a lay man.....

When you are outside of time your question is worthless.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#99788 Sep 19, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>How did God come into existence?

And don't tell me he was always there....that makes no sense at all.

And of course you reply with...."Well, the 'Big Bang' makes no sense either."

And I rely, "impasse."

Thing is, although we don't know it all, we have all the facts and in over 150 years fundamentalists have been unable to disprove evolution....and because it is a fact they never will
"And of course you reply with...."Well, the 'Big Bang' makes no sense either."

Oh it makes sense, it's sciences attempt to create with out God. Of course it fails at the very beginning TIME. But science doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good theory.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#99789 Sep 19, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>How did God come into existence?

And don't tell me he was always there....that makes no sense at all.

And of course you reply with...."Well, the 'Big Bang' makes no sense either."

And I rely, "impasse."

Thing is, although we don't know it all, we have all the facts and in over 150 years fundamentalists have been unable to disprove evolution....and because it is a fact they never will
How can you explain a 13.7 billion year old universe and have 14.8 billion year old stars?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#99790 Sep 19, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"How did God come into existence?"
He didn't
Next
"He didn't"

Aha, that's what I thought....there never was a God, he's just a myth.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#99791 Sep 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>The real science answer is we don't know.

The honest human answer is the same.

The phony religious answer is "It's God because admitting we don't know scares me"
Steven Hawkins claims real time started at the point of the preBig Bang singularity where all the laws is physics break down.

And I have stated the Time existence breaks all the laws of physics.

Pretty much says the same thing.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#99792 Sep 19, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>Using real science that is unknown and using current knowledge and the basic laws of the universe it is currently unknowable.

There is nothing to say that the visible universe was created from anything or nothing. The very laws that describe our understanding of universe we inhabit did not begin exist until 10^-34th of a second after the event.

Science and mathematics are working on expanding our knowledge and several theories have been introduced based on the mathematics of Dr Param Singh, at least one of those theories explains ALL the anomalies we can see in the visible universe.

So, real science is busy working on the problem that you love to pose, a problem that science and most assuredly religion can not yet understand but you are of course welcome to make guesses and proclaim them as “TRUTH” because that’s what your faith tells you to believe. The fact that this “TRUTH” is pure guesswork based on nothing but the superstitions of bronze age man seems to pass you by for some reason.
"There is nothing to say that the visible universe was created from anything or nothing. The very laws that describe our understanding of universe we inhabit did not begin exist until 10^-34th of a second after the event."

You should be ashamed of yourself for buying into your get out of jail free card.

Science MUST stick to the laws of the universe! what you wrote is religion.
No proof, no observable evidence.
Just a believe.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#99793 Sep 19, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"And of course you reply with...."Well, the 'Big Bang' makes no sense either."
Oh it makes sense, it's sciences attempt to create with out God. Of course it fails at the very beginning TIME. But science doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
Who feeds you all this wrong information about science??

It (Big Bang) is an attempt to interpret the facts available in a natural light. Science DOES NOT deal with magical stuff....which the Bible uses to explain a natural world.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#99794 Sep 19, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>Nice theory :)
If you like acid trip dreams.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#99795 Sep 19, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Your cult information sources are lying to you my friend.
Say wordy what do you think of this?

Steven Hawkins has stated that real time started at the pre Big Bang singularity where ALL the laws of physics fail.

In other words it what I've been saying: the existence of time breaks all the laws of physics.

Science MUST stay with the Laws of the universe. Breaking those laws or believing thing outside of those laws is Religion. Steven Hawkins belief of the start of time is his personal religion.
Not science.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 7 min Mike Allen 5,889
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 7 min Blue Corduroy 6,526
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 9 min Princess Hey 145,033
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 10 min Mike Allen 40,137
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 13 min Mike Allen 6,861
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 18 min Mike Allen 1,256
favorite poets, authurs, ect. 19 min Mike Allen 6
Texas Governor Rick Perry Indicted 36 min Bill 219
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 59 min -Lea- 18,456
What's your tip for the day? 1 hr greymouser 790
Fergson Police Dept. 2 hr Digital Etiquette 307
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••