Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 199211 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 1

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#99925 Sep 22, 2013
Benny wrote:
<quoted text>LOL. Charles Darwin was a racist. There's no prove that all life arose from one common ancestor. I am not surprised that the evolutionist theories are collapsing. Atheist science defend Darwinism like a religion. What a big fraud! One Hoax after another. They are so quick to announce their fake evolution discoveries, but they are not so quick to expose their mistakes and disproven conjectures.
To say Darwin was a racist is completely irrelevant to the discussion of evolution, and it is unfair to judge someone by todays moral standards. There is proof that life arose from"nothing" (as though i wouldn't consider a soup of proteins to be nothing) and this theory is called abiogenesis, google it. Evolution or Darwinism is not followed like a religion because unlike a religion, it does not require blind faith and is supported by hard evidence. Seriously, look for a credible scientist (by credible i mean some one who follows the scientific method) who does not support evolution.

To name one small piece of evidence; what about the order we see fossils inside of rick strata? If creationism was correct, we would see dinosaur fossils next to human fossils. Actually, we probably wouldn't even see fossils since they take millions of years to form, but for arguments sake we will ignore that. Instead, we do have a fossil record, and it does show a slow evolution of species.

To say that scientists are dogmatic in their practice in just uniformed. Scientists have admitted mistakes throughout the development of the evolutionary theory. To name a few, piltdown man and recapitulation theory. However it is important to note that just because mistakes have been made in the development of the theory does not mean that the entire theory is incorrect. The great thing about science is that when a mistake is made, it just clarifies the rest of the theory by excluding that specific piece of the puzzle.

Also yes, evolution is a THEORY because until we invent a time machine and take pictures and extensive notes, there will be conflicting ideas and themes. But, gravity is also a theory, and most people don't doubt it's existence.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#99926 Sep 22, 2013
Dan_Dan_the_Geology_Man wrote:
<quoted text>
To say Darwin was a racist is completely irrelevant to the discussion of evolution, and it is unfair to judge someone by todays moral standards. There is proof that life arose from"nothing" (as though i wouldn't consider a soup of proteins to be nothing) and this theory is called abiogenesis, google it. Evolution or Darwinism is not followed like a religion because unlike a religion, it does not require blind faith and is supported by hard evidence. Seriously, look for a credible scientist (by credible i mean some one who follows the scientific method) who does not support evolution.
To name one small piece of evidence; what about the order we see fossils inside of rick strata? If creationism was correct, we would see dinosaur fossils next to human fossils. Actually, we probably wouldn't even see fossils since they take millions of years to form, but for arguments sake we will ignore that. Instead, we do have a fossil record, and it does show a slow evolution of species.
To say that scientists are dogmatic in their practice in just uniformed. Scientists have admitted mistakes throughout the development of the evolutionary theory. To name a few, piltdown man and recapitulation theory. However it is important to note that just because mistakes have been made in the development of the theory does not mean that the entire theory is incorrect. The great thing about science is that when a mistake is made, it just clarifies the rest of the theory by excluding that specific piece of the puzzle.
Also yes, evolution is a THEORY because until we invent a time machine and take pictures and extensive notes, there will be conflicting ideas and themes. But, gravity is also a theory, and most people don't doubt it's existence.
Nice write-up Dan.

The fundamentalists on these Topix forums have a genetic inability to accept facts though. Prepare your self for arguments that are decades old....been solved for decades, but still used by them.

They do not have the proper reasoning ability, it has apparently been breed out of them.

Have a good time though.

:-)

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#99927 Sep 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Give what a rest?
Defending my belief when under attack?
Or just plane <sic> embarrassing science with facts.
Ooooh, I can just see the scientists shaking in their boots.

You need to get a new phone....the spelling is atrocious.:-)

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#99928 Sep 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't like this?
You doubt these statements?
I don't see any public acclaim or journal articles or anything to support or suggest that science has been wrong all these years.

And you DO know that fundamentalists have been predicting the fall of evolution for over 150 years....they just can't find any supporting evidence....it's all on Darwin's side.

All I see is the usual kind of attack by fundamentalists....trying to muddy the water instead of exploring and learning stuff. Using places like AiG or ICR or such like, to get phony science, ignoring sooo much reality
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#99929 Sep 23, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Ummmm .... Nope
I have absolute proof of God.
You'd be the only one on the planet.(shrug)
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Your facts - time can't existed with out going into magic land to create it.
Oh, KJ, you're lying again.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
The Big Bang could not have happened without invoking magic.
False. Time was either uncaused or time continues infinitely into the past. No need for magic.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
The goo pond could not produce the first life form with out magic.
False. All that's required is chemistry, since all that's required today to make life is chemistry. No need for magic.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Macro evolution could have never happened with out magic.
False. All it requires are the mechanisms which are observed. No need for magic.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Ya you've got facts, fact that science can't explain.
Science is the ONLY thing that explains facts. Godmagic doesn't explain anything. That's why the Big Bang you like to decry correctly predicted redshift, and background radiation to an accuracy of 3 parts per million. Goddidit can't do that.

That's why abiogenesis correctly predicted the first life was basic biochemistry followed by microbial/bacterial life forms. Goddidit can't do that.

That's why evolution correctly predicted nested hierarchies and precisely where to find fossils and what characteristics they would have. Goddidit can't do that.

In short for everything science knows you replace with Godmagic. For everything science doesn't know you replace with Godmagic. But for everything science knows we know thanks to science while Godmagic hasn't been able to explain anything for thousands of years.

Your computer is not running on Godmagic. But it DOES allow you to quotemine scientists. You're welcome.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99930 Sep 23, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
I have absolute proof of God.
BS

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99931 Sep 23, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
If you wish to believe in "that can't happen" phrases have at it. I like to have an open mind, possibilities are nice whether they deal with myth or fact.
Maybe you should visit this link. http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/06/23/...
The reporter quotes the work of this scientist. http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/facu...
"And he said a conservative (albeit blind) guess would be..."

Blind guess. Not very impressive.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#99932 Sep 23, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't use our full potential in creative thought. That's a simple fact.
No, it's an OPINION based on clichés and bullshit. What does it actually MEAN, in specific scientific terms, to " use our full potential in creative thought"? I'll bet you can't define it.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
If we used 100% of our creative thought, the combustion engine would have been created thousands of years ago along with trips to the moon, mars and wherever else we wanted to go and we would have figured a way to make a device(s) to allow us to dive and stay as long as we wished in the deepest depths of any sea/ocean.
Complete crap. Scientific inventions come along bit by bit, in nested hierarchies, as technology advances.

You seem to be saying that, if we :sued our full creative potential," the ancient Egyptians ought to have mastered space travel, etc. That's nonsense.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Creative thought works at less than a 10% level for any one individual. People like Da Vinci and Einstein were the exception to the 10%. And people like Da Vinci and Einstein are examples of what we all could/can be if we used our creative thought as they did. But it doesn't happen. Get it?
I "get" that you're a shallow bullshitter who doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#99933 Sep 23, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone named Moses could have been the author for the original first five books. But we don't know that./QUOTE]

What we "know" is that the Pentateuch was written by four different authors and one redactor or editor, and ALL of the books were written hundreds of years AFTER the time of the supposed Moses.

The Documentary Hypothesis, and the identity of the Pentateuch's authors
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.h... #

[QUOTE who="No Surprise"]<quoted text>
One would think there would be evidence for a mass exodus. But just because we have no actual evidence that doesn't mean it didn't take place.
It means that, absent the evidence, it makes no sense to believe it DID take place. We have no actual, empirical evidence that there ISN'T a china teapot in orbit around Saturn, but that lack of evidence is no reason to assume the teapot is THERE.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
When science disbelieves something without researching what it disbelieves, nothing gets researched.
We are talking about Bible history and scholarship, which has been THOROUGHLY researched, both textually and in the field in the past 100 years. No Exodus.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Concerning the exodus, it's been mainly theists with science backgrounds that have looked for clues and evidence. And what they think is evidence general science scoffs at because it deals with an invisible being.
Stop the vague arm-waving and BSing.

If a huge number of people had wandered around the Sinai for 40 years, we would have buildings, campfires, burial sites, granaries, and all kinds of archeaological evidence of it. They would not have been walking every day, but would have stopped in places for years at a time.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#99934 Sep 23, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's an OPINION based on clichés and bullshit. What does it actually MEAN, in specific scientific terms, to " use our full potential in creative thought"? I'll bet you can't define it.
<quoted text>
Complete crap. Scientific inventions come along bit by bit, in nested hierarchies, as technology advances.
You seem to be saying that, if we :sued our full creative potential," the ancient Egyptians ought to have mastered space travel, etc. That's nonsense.
<quoted text>
I "get" that you're a shallow bullshitter who doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Just a guess but I would say using the full potential of our creative thought would be on the lines of imagination, creativity, invention, etc etc. Human IQ's vary, human imagination varies, human creativity vary, human thought varies, human concept of things vary. It is obvious the brains in humans vary. One may be a whiz in inventions, one may be a whiz in math, one may be a whiz in imagination. The extent of the mind varies is us all so one has to think if John Doe can do invent that, why can't we all? If John Doe can imagine that, why can't we all? If John Doe can understand that, why can't we all? Everyone's brain should have the same potential(unless hindered by a handicap) but not everyone can harness or use that potential. Thus many people don't use all of the capabilities that the brain is capable of.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#99935 Sep 23, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Just a guess but I would say using the full potential of our creative thought would be on the lines of imagination, creativity, invention, etc etc. Human IQ's vary, human imagination varies, human creativity vary, human thought varies, human concept of things vary. It is obvious the brains in humans vary. One may be a whiz in inventions, one may be a whiz in math, one may be a whiz in imagination. The extent of the mind varies is us all so one has to think if John Doe can do invent that, why can't we all? If John Doe can imagine that, why can't we all? If John Doe can understand that, why can't we all? Everyone's brain should have the same potential(unless hindered by a handicap) but not everyone can harness or use that potential. Thus many people don't use all of the capabilities that the brain is capable of.
You're overlooking one very important aspect: experience.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#99936 Sep 23, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You're overlooking one very important aspect: experience.
So if you have all the experience you can possibly get in Oh let's say biology how will that help you when it comes to architecture when designing a building?

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#99937 Sep 23, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
He's the one in the wheel chair and has a computer talk for him. Ya can't miss him.
Ironside?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#99938 Sep 23, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You'd be the only one on the planet.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Oh, KJ, you're lying again.
<quoted text>
False. Time was either uncaused or time continues infinitely into the past. No need for magic.
<quoted text>
False. All that's required is chemistry, since all that's required today to make life is chemistry. No need for magic.
<quoted text>
False. All it requires are the mechanisms which are observed. No need for magic.
<quoted text>
Science is the ONLY thing that explains facts. Godmagic doesn't explain anything. That's why the Big Bang you like to decry correctly predicted redshift, and background radiation to an accuracy of 3 parts per million. Goddidit can't do that.
That's why abiogenesis correctly predicted the first life was basic biochemistry followed by microbial/bacterial life forms. Goddidit can't do that.
That's why evolution correctly predicted nested hierarchies and precisely where to find fossils and what characteristics they would have. Goddidit can't do that.
In short for everything science knows you replace with Godmagic. For everything science doesn't know you replace with Godmagic. But for everything science knows we know thanks to science while Godmagic hasn't been able to explain anything for thousands of years.
Your computer is not running on Godmagic. But it DOES allow you to quotemine scientists. You're welcome.
May I cut in? I think abiogenesis is all-beef baloney. It is a theory based on we don't know nothin'.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#99939 Sep 23, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>May I cut in? I think abiogenesis is all-beef baloney. It is a theory based on we don't know nothin'.
Shows how much you know.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99940 Sep 24, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>

<quoted text>
I "get" that you're a shallow bullshitter who doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Well THAT'S 'Mo Surprise'

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99941 Sep 24, 2013
Mo = No

I guess I should have had coffee first...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#99942 Sep 24, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>May I cut in?
Sure.
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
I think abiogenesis is all-beef baloney.
Who cares what you think?(shrug)
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
It is a theory based on we don't know nothin'.
Actually it's a hypothesis based on evidence such as I described. No-one has a problem with chemistry producing life today since it happens millions and millions of times a day. However for some reason when it comes to the start of life on Earth all the fundies insist that chemistry must have worked totally different so as to make it impossible back then but not now, so divine intervention was required. Their opinions have nothing to do with science.

But if you are so concerned you're welcome to knock on the door of Harvard and tell them they're wasting their time because they haven't taken invisible Jewish magic into account.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#99943 Sep 24, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You and others keep referring to magic wizardry, not I. I stated the writer described a process that we now know takes place in the ocean/sea 'deep'.
Then why did he describe lots of things that referred to magic wizardry which are plainly at odds with reality and have zero evidence to back 'em up? Such as your flood.

You can either accept that the Bible is not completely accurate or you can be correctly described as appealing to invisible Jewish magic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#99944 Sep 24, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say I had evidence. Others here claim they have evidence to prove what's an unprovable story didn't happen.
The story actually fits the theory of evolution. That an 'unknown' source created a single biological source being asexual that reproduced itself till a variant evolved so that being asexual was not a necessity anymore.
In the story we have an 'unknown' source that created a single biological source from whence a variant came forth so opposites were needed to reproduce life.
If it was describing evolution then why did it ACTUALLY describe magical poofing, so strongly in fact that fundie believers also agree that it was not describing evolution which they think is wrong because they think that God used magical poofing instead?

The Bible is not a science or history book.

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
TRUMP, Donald (Jun '15) 1 min Jack 124
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... (Nov '14) 3 min Camilla 1,724
True False Game (Jun '11) 7 min Jack 12,379
Any Word ! (Mar '11) 16 min Mega Monster 4,500
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 16 min Camilla 192,757
One Word (Jan '09) 17 min Mega Monster 16,266
Word association (Jun '07) 17 min Mega Monster 4,638
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 25 min 8541 MARINE 56,784
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 34 min Jack 145,388
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 53 min honeymylove 7,419
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) 4 hr Bad Bex 7,179
More from around the web