Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 171952 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.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#100090 Sep 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>

Which particular particles are you referring to? Life? I already explained (duh) that they HAD a creator. If it were a purely natural non-divine non-magical event then that creator was chemistry, using the abundance of chemicals which had been on this planet for well over half a billion years.
Or were you referring to the universe itself? In which case if you reject Big Bang cosmology your "scientific alternative" is Godmagic. NOTHING created God. Apparently this is NOT a problem for Godmagic, but IS a problem for anything that ISN'T Godmagic.
Astoundingly massive hypocrisy noted.
Now you're just being stupidly funny. The creator was Chemistry!? And it is non-divine non-magical event? Let's see, I'll make it really simple for you. How did the lightest element Hydrogen come into existence? Where did the electrons, protons, and neutrons come from? Remember, no magic no divine intervention required. So explain. Where did natural process come from without intervention?

Are you sure you know how to make babies?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#100091 Sep 25, 2013
ThePreacherman01 wrote:
The only thing atheist can prove is they are nothing but a bunch of liars FACT. Evolution is nothing but lies, there is no truth in it, only lies that people made up. On the other hand Creation have got truth to it, 100% proof one word tells the truth and that word is "Prophecy". Why is this word tells the truth, that is easy to answer, "GOD DO NOT TELL LIES FACT END OF STORY"....
You are a 'Know Nothing' Dummy:-)

Why on earth would millions of scientists make up a pack of 'lies' about your stupid Bible??

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#100092 Sep 25, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a 'Know Nothing' Dummy:-)
Why on earth would millions of scientists make up a pack of 'lies' about your stupid Bible??
I can see why certain creationists upset you. LOL.

“Truder 3/4 mile, call the ball”

Level 2

Since: May 11

Truder 505 ball, 2.5

#100093 Sep 25, 2013
[TO THE TOPIX COMMUNITY – I HAVE REPOSTED THIS DUE TO EMBARRASSING TYPOS AND GRAMMATICAL ERRORS FROM THE PREVIOUS POST – PLEASE FORGIVE ME AS IT WAS WRITTEN ON A 15 MINUTE BREAK FROM WORK. THANK YOU]

This argument has been raging since before Darwin’s first edition of "The Origin" (Nov. 24, 1859). In it, due to his lack of current empirical evidence and knowledge of Mendel's work, he makes some very impressive mistakes based on "blending of traits" rather than more current "selective" traits. Due to the lack of current knowledge, Darwin did not realize that the theory of genetics with which he was operating was lethal for the concept of natural selection. But, upon further research into his own findings by taking into account other geologists, biologists and naturalists of the time, he did refine his views to come up with "selectivity of traits". 20th century evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould was once quoted as saying "Darwinian evolution is a bush, not a ladder". This implies that the species of the earth have not been in their current forms since the beginning of time, nor would they remain so.

British geneticist J. B. S. Haldane was asked by theologians if there was anything that could be concluded about the Creator from the study of Creation. His reply, although humorous was also apocryphal; "God has an inordinate fondness for beetles".

By the 5th edition of “The Origin”, Darwin had refined his theory enough to be esteemed by Tufts University philosopher Daniel C. Dennett as no less than “the single best idea anyone has ever had.”

To Darwin,“survival of the fittest” meant the same as “natural selection”. That is; those organisms with selectively favored and heritable characteristics are the ones who most successfully pass them to their offspring. Ergo, the use of “fittest” was not meant to describe those species that will survive, but rather to those who, when compared to members of their own species, could be expected to survive because they were better adapted to the environment.

So, to the environment…(Insert your favored cataclysmic event here (be it actual or described in scripture)).

“Uniformitarianism” is the theory at the base of this discussion. This theory, in one form or another, has been debated since Aristotle. Uniformitarianism states that all things that “were” in the immeasurable past must remain so for the unforeseeable future (meaning all life and all environments). However, with the advancements in geology, Lord Kelvin notwithstanding, this theory has been universally disproven. Countless geologists, hydro-geologist, paleontologist, paleo-geologists, paleobotanists , geomorphologists, climatologists, paleo-climatologists and slews of physicists have provided even greater quantities of research that give a fairly accurate (accurate enough for this discussion at least) that the age of the earth is greater than 4.4 billion years but less than 4.6 billion (commonly accepted within the scientific communities as 4.54 to 4.56 billion years). This number is, for the religiously minded, Satan’s work and meant to expose the heretics.

In conclusion,(this is a too short and wholly incomplete compilation of my views on this topic for brevity’s sake) evolution exists whether you believe in a dogmatic stricture or not, it exists. Without it, we, and in fact, all living things on this planet would not have survived this long. Climates change, plates move, tides shift, rivers flood or go dry, glaciers advance and recede; and yet, we still progress toward something. That something is as yet unknown and will (me… being philosophical for a moment) continue to adapt until an eventual end. Or, we as a species, find further afield new homes within our galaxy to inhabit; to explore and adapt to new environments.

“Truder 3/4 mile, call the ball”

Level 2

Since: May 11

Truder 505 ball, 2.5

#100094 Sep 25, 2013
[TO THE TOPIX COMMUNITY – I HAVE REPOSTED THIS DUE TO EMBARRASSING TYPOS AND GRAMMATICAL ERRORS – PLEASE FORGIVE ME AS IT WAS WRITTEN ON A 15 MINUTE BREAK FROM WORK. THANK YOU]

This argument has been raging since before Darwin’s first edition of "The Origin" (Nov. 24, 1859). In it, due to his lack of current empirical evidence and knowledge of Mendel's work, he makes some very impressive mistakes based on "blending of traits" rather than more current "selective" traits. Due to the lack of current knowledge, Darwin did not realize that the theory of genetics with which he was operating was lethal for the concept of natural selection. But, upon further research into his own findings by taking into account other geologists, biologists and naturalists of the time, he did refine his views to come up with "selectivity of traits". 20th century evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould was once quoted as saying "Darwinian evolution is a bush, not a ladder". This implies that the species of the earth have not been in their current forms since the beginning of time, nor would they remain so.

British geneticist J. B. S. Haldane was asked by theologians if there was anything that could be concluded about the Creator from the study of Creation. His reply, although humorous was also apocryphal; "God has an inordinate fondness for beetles".

By the 5th edition of “The Origin”, Darwin had refined his theory enough to be esteemed by Tufts University philosopher Daniel C. Dennett as no less than “the single best idea anyone has ever had.”

To Darwin,“survival of the fittest” meant the same as “natural selection”. That is; those organisms with selectively favored and heritable characteristics are the ones who most successfully pass them to their offspring. Ergo, the use of “fittest” was not meant to describe those species that will survive, but rather to those who, when compared to members of their own species, could be expected to survive because they were better adapted to the environment.

So, to the environment…(Insert your favored cataclysmic event here (be it actual or described in scripture)).

“Uniformitarianism” is the theory at the base of this discussion. This theory, in one form or another, has been debated since Aristotle. Uniformitarianism states that all things that “were” in the immeasurable past must remain so for the unforeseeable future (meaning all life and all environments). However, with the advancements in geology, Lord Kelvin notwithstanding, this theory has been universally disproven. Countless geologists, hydro-geologist, paleontologist, paleo-geologists, paleobotanists , geomorphologists, climatologists, paleo-climatologists and slews of physicists have provided even greater quantities of research that give a fairly accurate (accurate enough for this discussion at least) that the age of the earth is greater than 4.4 billion years but less than 4.6 billion (commonly accepted within the scientific communities as 4.54 to 4.56 billion years). This number is, for the religiously minded, Satan’s work and meant to expose the heretics.

In conclusion,(this is a too short and wholly incomplete compilation of my views on this topic for brevity’s sake) evolution exists whether you believe in a dogmatic stricture or not, it exists. Without it, we, and in fact, all living things on this planet would not have survived this long. Climates change, plates move, tides shift, rivers flood or go dry, glaciers advance and recede; and yet, we still progress toward something. That something is as yet unknown and will (me… being philosophical for a moment) continue to adapt until an eventual end. Or, we as a species, find further afield new homes within our galaxy to inhabit; to explore and adapt to new environments.

“Truder 3/4 mile, call the ball”

Level 2

Since: May 11

Truder 505 ball, 2.5

#100095 Sep 25, 2013
crap...it posted twice? Sorry again for the repetition. I'm unsure why it did it twice...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#100096 Sep 25, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you were "scientifically inclined" or well versed in Science.
Those are not branches of science.
Of course they are. They are different branches of physics.
Cybele wrote:
They're different laws, principles, and theories. There are laws and theories that supersedes others and older ones.
That works too.
Cybele wrote:
I'm talking about how you think the theory of evolution which is in the branch of Biology is superior to Physics or Chemistry, but it is NOT.
Actually I have not claimed that evolutionary biology is superior either to chemistry, or to physics. In fact if I was to claim an order of superiority I would put biology at the bottom, followed by chemistry, as ultimately all biology is is chemistry. Which in turn would be superseded by physics, as ultimately all chemistry is is physics. You have been distracted by the fact that, since we are in the evolution forum (or at least I am anyway), and this thread IS about evolution vs pseudoscience, evolution is understandably the most discussed topic other than theology around here. Therefore gets most of the flack from creationists. Of course if you HAD been paying attention you would have noticed I have defended both physics AND chemistry from the pseudo-scientific attacks of creationists too.
Cybele wrote:
All you have been presenting is Evolutionist propaganda.
No, I have simply been describing the world as it is and the state of science as it is. You complain that we aren't open to new ideas which are different from evolution but no-one has yet been able to offer anything that comes close to competing with science, period.

That's not our problem.
Cybele wrote:
You don't want NEW information because you think only highly qualified with titles next to their names can do so.
Well that can help. But since you HAVE no new information, then that makes the problem a twofer fer you.
Cybele wrote:
And so you kiss their a$$ instead of actually contributing something.
But I am contributing something - an alternative to your ignorance. If only you had something to offer other than baseless ad-hom.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#100097 Sep 25, 2013
BASHER505 wrote:
Darwin did not realize that the theory of genetics with which he was operating
I'm not aware of this. I doubt Darwin was either.

However Mario Livio wrote it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#100098 Sep 25, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're just being stupidly funny. The creator was Chemistry!? And it is non-divine non-magical event?
Well I did use the caveat 'if'.(shrug)
Cybele wrote:
Let's see, I'll make it really simple for you. How did the lightest element Hydrogen come into existence? Where did the electrons, protons, and neutrons come from? Remember, no magic no divine intervention required. So explain. Where did natural process come from without intervention?
I'll make it really simple for you - abiogenesis and the Big Bang are separated by approximately... ten BILLION years.

Seriously? In order to criticize a concept you don't understand you have to move the goalposts back 10,000,000,000 years? Especially after I already made a statement about the start of the Big Bang. So there are only three possibilities:

1 - You're exceedingly daft.

2 - You're exceedingly intellectually dishonest.

3 - You're exceedingly daft and intellectually dishonest.
Cybele wrote:
Are you sure you know how to make babies?
Well I guess I could watch a video or two... Pile of dirt and spare rib, right?

“Truder 3/4 mile, call the ball”

Level 2

Since: May 11

Truder 505 ball, 2.5

#100099 Sep 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not aware of this. I doubt Darwin was either.
However Mario Livio wrote it.
You are correct. But that was one of the earliest mistakes in the first release of "The Origin"

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#100100 Sep 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If only you had something to offer other than baseless ad-hom.(shrug)
Ad homs? You are the number one poster of ad homs in this forum. You want me to list all the name calling and labeling you post?

Yeah maybe I have nothing to offer here. Maybe this forum isn't the right place to be.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#100101 Sep 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I did use the caveat 'if'.(shrug)
<quoted text>
I'll make it really simple for you - abiogenesis and the Big Bang are separated by approximately... ten BILLION years.
Seriously? In order to criticize a concept you don't understand you have to move the goalposts back 10,000,000,000 years? Especially after I already made a statement about the start of the Big Bang. So there are only three possibilities:
1 - You're exceedingly daft.
2 - You're exceedingly intellectually dishonest.
3 - You're exceedingly daft and intellectually dishonest.
<quoted text>
Well I guess I could watch a video or two... Pile of dirt and spare rib, right?
So in other words you don't have an answer. Stop making all kinds of excuses to dodge the question.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#100102 Sep 25, 2013
BASHER505 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct. But that was one of the earliest mistakes in the first release of "The Origin"
It's not a mistake if he had no idea DNA existed. Newton on the other hand KNEW Mercury never fit with his theory. However even then I'm pretty sure he didn't particularly try to hide it. But at least that would fit the term 'blunder' better.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#100103 Sep 25, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Ad homs? You are the number one poster of ad homs in this forum. You want me to list all the name calling and labeling you post?
If you would find that fun, be my guest. Then I will provide detailed explanations as to why they are in actual fact accurate descriptions rather than ad-homs.
Cybele wrote:
Yeah maybe I have nothing to offer here. Maybe this forum isn't the right place to be.
Well you DID say that earlier:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

(shrug)

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#100104 Sep 25, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So in other words you don't have an answer. Stop making all kinds of excuses to dodge the question.

If science can't explain something, it's a definite fact it's an unknown and it doesn't point to a god or designer as being the cause.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#100105 Sep 25, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So in other words you don't have an answer. Stop making all kinds of excuses to dodge the question.
I didn't. Here's the answer:

http://img.docstoccdn.com/thumb/orig/13494836...

And as for what caused that, here's the answer:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Note that despite your inaccurate and dishonest claims, neither of these cause the slightest problem for abiogenesis, which involves the development of life on planet Earth during a time when all the materials required had already been present for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#100106 Sep 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a mistake if he had no idea DNA existed. Newton on the other hand KNEW Mercury never fit with his theory. However even then I'm pretty sure he didn't particularly try to hide it. But at least that would fit the term 'blunder' better.
The amount Newtons calculations are off is mini, 43 arc seconds per century. Or 0.0119444444 degrees every 100 years. That's why Nasa still uses Newtons formulas

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#100107 Sep 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
But it just MIGHT have!!! What if it DID??
:-(
http://zamabatkhela.com/wp-content/uploads/20...
Ask KAB, Mr Data.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#100108 Sep 25, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
If science can't explain something, it's a definite fact it's an unknown and it doesn't point to a god or designer as being the cause.
I could care less what you call God or not. But there is something that "created" everything. There may be a multitude of them.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#100109 Sep 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't. Here's the answer:
http://img.docstoccdn.com/thumb/orig/13494836...
And as for what caused that, here's the answer:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Note that despite your inaccurate and dishonest claims, neither of these cause the slightest problem for abiogenesis, which involves the development of life on planet Earth during a time when all the materials required had already been present for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooong time.
Dude, the simplest element, you don't have an answer to it. LOL! You are the daft one. You can't even tell where natural processes come from and why they occur. You have no clue! Abiogenesis don't have an answer, all they have are contradicting theories. Nada...

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
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 5 min hmm 9,340
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 7 min Terrible_Herbst 10,184
" Tell me a secret"...... (Oct '14) 8 min Just Roxie 525
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 9 min oddie 18,490
last word - first (Jun '12) 10 min Alain Vain 7,796
Word association (Jun '07) 12 min Alain Vain 3,370
Add a Word remove a Word (Oct '13) 14 min Alain Vain 2,107
Has anyone on here told lies about you? (Dec '11) 14 min see 247
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 20 min Alain Vain 12,729
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 27 min Princess Hey 167,266
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr TALLYHO 8541 42,115
More from around the web