Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 164325 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 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#100524 Oct 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The Canadian find is oceanic rock.
It is literally the basaltic and some has other properties, but is the first crust that formed as the Earth cooled and water condensed creating the shallow seas. And greenstone
The deformed volcanic sequences that form greenstone belts in the Canadian Shield contain hyaloclastite and pillow lavas, indicating these areas were once below sea level and the lava was rapidly cooled underwater. Pillow lavas more than two billion years old indicate large submarine volcanoes existed during the early stages of the Earth's formation.[22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanology_of_C...
The pillow lava pushed up the older oceanic crust in this case, the part we thought was gone forever from subduction.
http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2007/0...
The oldest rocks on Earth are 4.28 billion years old - the Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt, exposed on the eastern shore of Hudson Bay, northern Quebec, Canada. With an age of about 4.28 billion years, it is the only portion of the Earth's crust known to have formed during the Hadean eon. In this greenstone belt the oldest dates came from rocks called "faux amphibolite," which are thought to be ancient volcanic deposits. These beat the previously oldest known rocks, which are about 4.03 billion years old and come from the Acasta Gneiss formation in Canada's Northwest Territories. The only older crustal material is from isolated mineral grains called zircons, which are highly resistant to weathering and geologic processes. The Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt gives researchers a fresh perspective on the early separation of Earth's mantle from the crust. It is thought that a shallow ocean had already existed 300 million years after the Earth's formation. It raises puzzling questions as to ancient bacteria, as they are thought to be needed to precipitate iron availability for the formation of this type of rock. It might very well be that this rock may also contain traces of the oldest form of life in some way.
http://www.sciencemall-usa.com/nugrbe.html
Interesting that they think life maybe found in it too.
Not quite. There are quite a few different rock strata in Canada. I was talking about 4.1 by old gneiss which is granitic or continental in origin. But your greenstone belt is older than the gneiss that I linked so you did fin an older rock and it looks like it would be oceanic crust.

Actually that makes more sense since the most common way to make continental crust is to take some older oceanic crust and partially remelt it. The lighter more easily melted minerals form granite and rhyolite the heavier remaining rock sinks into the mantle.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100525 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I never stated there was a Biblical flood or when or how. You're the looney to continue to think I have said such things when I haven't.
Yet you keep arguing that it could have happened.
No Surprise wrote:
I have stated the earth has it's own potential to do whatever it will, including flooding itself above the highest peaks or freezing nearly all water on it's surface in a nuclear glacial winter and covering nearly all land in deep, deep snow for a short period of time.
No, the earth cannot do whatever it will. It obeys the same laws of physics as everything else.
No Surprise wrote:
You on the other hand have continually stated what you believe never can happen or never would happen and that is your narrow, shallow restrictive opinion.
And also because I'm not a friggin loony who thinks that anything can happen,

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100527 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Doofus? lol...fricking to funny states the doofus who believes theories never become fact. Are you pathetically ignorant? It was a theory that disagreed with a more popular theory that proved and became a fact that the earth rotated around the sun and not viceversa. Theories were the basis of all established facts. Theories where probable/provable became/become an established fact in science.
If your logic is correct(which it isn't)that theories NEVER become fact, than it's still an unproven theory that the sun is the center of our solar system.
If your logic is correct(which it isn't)that theories NEVER become fact, than it's still an unproven theory that gravity holds us to this earth.
Should I continue with your logic? Hmm?
Wow! You really are that dumb. What I said was 100% correct. Now go back any try and finish your GED. Hopefully before you start collecting social security,

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#100528 Oct 4, 2013
And here is why I did not use the the greenstone Aura mentioned:

"
Oldest rock on Earth[edit]
The Acasta Gneiss in the Canadian Shield in the Northwest Territories, Canada is composed of the Archaean igneous and gneissic cores of ancient mountain chains that have been exposed in a glacial peneplain. Analyses of zircons from a felsic orthogneiss with presumed granitic protolith returned an age of 4.031 ± 0.003 Ga.[1]
On September 25, 2008, researchers from McGill University, Carnegie Institution for Science and UQAM announced that a rock formation, the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt, exposed on the eastern shore of Hudson Bay in northern Quebec had a Sm-Nd age for extraction from the mantle of 4.28 billion years.[8][9][10][11] However, it is argued that the actual age of formation of this rock, as opposed to the extraction of its magma from the mantle, is likely closer to 3.8 billion years, according to Simon Wilde of the Institute for Geoscience Research in Australia.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_roc...

Of course they are going to the original time of cooling for the gneiss that I mentioned, not its later metamorphicism. So I still give it to the greenstone belt.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100529 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
That's your intelligent reply? Par for course for you isn't it :)
MikeF in conversations he doesn't like...lol
"Some say it's possible there was a global flood."
MikeF.."Good. Then you can STFU about it."
"There's elephant head reliefs on Mayan stone buildings."
MikeF..."Good. Then you can STFU about it."
"There's growing evidence for cocaine from South and or central America in Egyptian mummies and not just cross contamination."
MikeF.."Good. Then you can STFU about it."
You go dude :)
Massive ignorance. Amazing.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100530 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
That's nice. I can do the same for you :)
Do you know how many times Florida was covered by ancient oceans? You should have an idea as you pretend to understand all things science and you do live in Florida.
Do you know how many different ways Florida/parts of Florida was covered from sudden violent action to maybe a few inches to a foot a year by ocean water?
Do you know that most depressions on the earths surface that water resides in called 'lakes' were formed by ancient glacial flooding and from swirling currents disturbing the sea floor to earthquake activity and crustal movement to how ancient surface lava beds settled?
Floods are majorly responsible for reshaping the earth's general surface so that where there wasn't a lake there maybe one afterwards or a small lake might be reshaped to being a large lake. Glaciers have also played a large part.
By the way bub, I live/lived in two states where most lake beds were shaped by glaciers and glacier flooding where water would later fill and remain. Now what?
You were wrong. Again. Your little rant doesn't change that.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100531 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely not.
I have repeatedly disparaged your's and others remarks who claim to understand science and use words like 'never','impossible','never happened', etc. That is true.
{yawn}

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100532 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
As you state it no. Never happens. People of science do not use predictions to help formulate theories to show proof of something they wish to be recognized as fact.
Here you say they do not make prediction.
No Surprise wrote:
People in science doing estimations may predict the outcome ahead of time, that is true.
Here you say they do. Can't make up you mind? Or just confused?
No Surprise wrote:
The following I took from the web for you :)
Prediction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction
Informal prediction ...· Statistics · Prediction in science · Finance · Sports
A prediction (Latin prę-, "before," and dicere, "to say") or forecast is a statement about the way things will happen in the future, often but not always based on ...
..........
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Overview · Scientific inquiry · Elements of the ...· Models of scientific ...
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed ...
The following I took from the web for you since you are in too much of a damn hurry to even read your own links:

"The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself,[discuss] supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false."

Notice the word "PREDICTIONS", moron?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100533 Oct 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
People that rely on links are unable to present an argument and need to have someone else do the bidding for them.
Horseshit. Links to respected documentation is an excellent way to support an argument. No one is going to retype an entire paper just to satisfy some whiner.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100534 Oct 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Thing is in ten minutes, I'll have forgotten all about you, but you will be thinking about me all day...
Today when you see the color BLUE, you see an image of yourself turning BLUE,(like the girl in Wonka that turned into a blueberry) that will remind you of how I exposed you in front of all your little trolls in here and that makes you BLUE.
OK, I'm done with this one, tossing back.
Next?
Arrogant little prick, aren't you?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#100535 Oct 4, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You were wrong. Again. Your little rant doesn't change that.
As I perceive it,the logic is:
Water exists in aquifers, and a torrent of accumulated glacial melt caused the scablands, therefore you can NEVER use absolute terms in science and it is ALWAYS possible that Noah saved opossums, pandas and wallabys.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#100536 Oct 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text> Another clueless troll...
You able to provide any evidence to support your BS claim?
Are we to just take your word on it?
Just curious if you even understand what DNA is and its function?
What definition of DNA do you agree with?
I have just spent the last month working through the mtDNA haplotype issue with KAB, a hardcore Flood loving creationist on another thread.

Under no scenario he can dream up, not even when I put on a "creationist hat" and helped, can we make the diversity and the structure of the nested hierarchy evident in human haplotypes fit into a scenario where n=3 (3 women), 4500 years ago. Not even close.

Dogen has been watching the whole thing and he will tell you. I tried everything. I bent every assumption I could in KAB's favour. Still does not work.

There was no bottleneck of n=3 (or even close) at 4500 years ago (or even close).

Therefore no WW Flood destroying everyone except the Arkies. Unless you want to apply magic to the haplotype tree too, then anything is possible of course.

But we weren't born yesterday. Or were we? With magic even that could be possible.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#100537 Oct 4, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Massive ignorance. Amazing.
By now, THAT should come as 'No Surprise' to you

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#100538 Oct 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you want more question when you won't answer any I have asked so far?
Okay, he is an easy one.
I remember your claim was at one time the entire surface was covered with water.
Since you now state billions of years, did you want to offer a specific time in history when you claim the last time the entire surface was covered with water?
I really doubt that there was ever a time when the whole earth was covered in water. I have never seen the slightest bit of evidence for it. I know pretty much beyond doubt that the Noachian flood never happened....most of the Old Testament didn't happen.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#100539 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
As I stated that you side stepped addressing. Iridium wasn't known to exist in a geological layer till someone found it and identified it. People can suppose they know what to look for concerning a global flood. That doesn't mean their correct. The scablands were flooded and evidence was there but no one saw it till someone understood what they were looking for. Science is based on possibilities, not impossibilities.
So nobody knows what to look for, which would by definition include you. Therefore it still could have happened even though nobody knows what to look for.

And you want people to take you seriously, yes?

Actually, NS, we have already explained what you should be looking for. A modern day Earth looking something like this:

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2008092...

Of course science is not based on impossibilities, right? Which means we should have no problem with the possibility of all mountains on Earth to suddenly start flying 15,000 feet in the air tomorrow.

And apparently ours is the extremist position.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#100540 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what evidence is and I know what evidence isn't
Actually you already demonstrated quite adequately that you don't have the slightest f cking clue.(shrug)
No Surprise wrote:
And bottlenecks have happened. Maybe you should Google the words you used. Since we have no precise data for when this myth actually took place, you can't use bottleneck data for or against the theory.
Actually the evidence already provided DOES go against your claims. The fact that you not only ignored it but didn't even understand a single word of it is rather telling. It's not just simple time factors that's a problem, it's the massive massive inbreeding which leads to inevitable population decline. And that's not a tenable position when you only start with 8 people, half of which are already related. And even worse for the animals who had only two.

In short, you're talking out your azz. This is not a problem. Just say Goddidit with magic and all your problems will be solved.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#100541 Oct 4, 2013
Colorado Chick wrote:
OMG!! CHISEL Away..Folks!!
YO OLD GEEZERS!!
Why are ya STILL Persuing THIS Dead-Beat Subject???
Eff off, you azzhole....go grow a set.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#100543 Oct 4, 2013
replaytime wrote:
So what I am saying is if we were not there we will never know and if you think science is perfect, you are a fool. Science is great for what is going on now and will be great for what we are facing but science is not a perfect past predictor as many think.
Perfect? No, nothing that exists ever is.

But the claim "How do YOU know? Where you THERE?!?" is one that makes courtroom judges roll their eyes at least ten times a day.

Because contrary to the claims of creationists and stupid people, it is actually possible to make predictions based on events of the past. That's why scientists using "evolutionist" biology make successful predictions about ancient genetics. That's why scientists using "evolutionist" geology find oil fields. That's why creationists who do science actually do "evolutionist" science then lie later when they say it proves Goddidit with magic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#100544 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...wrong. I am of the opinion that when 'impossible' is used with science theory, people reveal a defeatists attitude and prove what they will never be capable of learning through possibilities. I believe what's been discovered in the past or at present stands the chance to be proven wrong and incorrect and or can be improved upon considering it's present understanding.
You and others here have proven post after post you're not open to possibilities, not I.
So you DO at least accept, in principle, the concept of falsification (though you apparently don't understand it).

That's why the mountains COULD possibly fly tomorrow.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#100545 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
People like you claim evidence exists to show a global flood never happened.
... yes, and we're waiting for you to present us evidence of Earth with a grand total of ZERO life.

Or that the USS Enterprise is real. Preferably Picard's version.

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
Poll New "Drop one Word" With Famous People's Names (Oct '12) 8 min -TheExam- 767
Please STOP judging me negatively.. 9 min SPAM 16
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 13 min wichita-rick 163,033
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 22 min Crazy Jae 5,767
The Next Person Game (Mar '11) 23 min Crazy Jae 9,909
Some day, I would love to_______________? (Sep '12) 28 min Crazy Jae 464
Things that make life eaiser... 31 min Crazy Jae 628
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 39 min Crazy Jae 28,893
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 41 min Crazy Jae 31,980
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 1 hr Brandiiiiiiii 4,587
More from around the web