Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Since: Sep 13

UK

#100565 Oct 5, 2013
The Dude:-
"I see. Therefore if you personally cannot verify something yourself then they are not true.
For instance if I were to tell you I was human then that is not true. If I was to tell you that I was a denizen of planet Earth then that is not true. But if I was to tell you that I was an alien then that also isn't true. It seems your brand of nihilism leads you to contradictions. It also means that evidence does not matter.
<quoted text>
And science never makes that claim. That is because science makes use of the concept of falsifiability, which is then used to make successful predictions.

And that is why science makes use of evidence. Whichever position has more evidence that is more likely to be correct. Those positions may change later as and when more evidence is discovered. For instance plate tectonics was not taken very seriously at first but eventually the evidence won out. That may or may not change again later, pending future discoveries."
I would first of all like to thank you for your comments, because they show better than I ever could the sort of person I am talking about. I am talking about the sort of person who takes the evidence or facts and then use it to support their argument or what they wish to believe.
I know what I posted but before responding to your comments I read it again to make sure of my facts before responding to your comments.
"I see. Therefore if you personally cannot verify something yourself then they are not true.
For instance if I were to tell you I was human then that is not true. If I was to tell you that I was a denizen of planet Earth then that is not true. But if I was to tell you that I was an alien then that also isn't true. It seems your brand of nihilism leads you to contradictions. It also means that evidence does not matter."
It is clear from the above comments that evidence and truth do not matter to you.
Creationism, Darwinism and the big bang theory. Can you point out to me where in my post and which theory I claim is untrue? The fact is I don't! What I state is that I am not prepared to claim either is true! It is what is called reserving judgement and if a piece of evidence arises that proves beyond doubt that one of the theories is true then and only then would I be prepared to claim either theory is true.
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"
It is a statement used to describe exactly what I am saying mostly used to describe the use of numbers, but not solely numbers, to support an argument and make it seem like there is more evidence to support an argument than there is. It is your way of thinking therefore that leads to contradictions and not mine.
My argument is the only one that is true and beyond doubt, because I have simply stated that "nobody can be certain that their theory is true."
I mentioned experts in court and it has been proven that they have ignored evidence that disproves their theory in order to strengthen their argument. Which is why I treat all evidence with scepticism unless I can prove it myself.
You refer to aliens which once again proves my point. I can go to another country and tell them I can prove that I am an alien. All I need to do then is show them my birth certificate which states I was born in Liverpool. After all I didn't say I was an extra terrestrial alien. Misleading but after all not untrue.
Some people from Birkenhead sound like Scousers, but they aren't Scouse, yet some people believe they are. A Scouser is someone born and bred, like me, in Liverpool. The fact is with any argument we can only take the evidence put in front of us and decide how much weight we attach to it. I hear a Scouse accent I dont automatically assume they are from Liverpool and yet others do. I am never wrong because I don't claim they are or aren't Scouse, but those who make claims that they are have a 50/50 chance of being wrong because they have attached to much weight to the evidence.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#100566 Oct 5, 2013
spOko wrote:
<quoted text>
Noah also made a hell of a good bagel :-)
Nah, the only thing he could cook was pine tar. He stole the credit for bagels from his chattel, Emzara.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#100567 Oct 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you seriously saying theories get proven? Seriously?
And just a minute ago you were talking about the potential for falsifiability. What happened to that?
Have you never just considered that you're just in way over your head?
BINGO!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#100568 Oct 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Creation is a silly myth?
But a lava covered world cooled by water creates an ocean where life pops out? Ha,Ha,Ha. Must have been the life giving lava rock!
Talk about silly myths.
O hai Bo. Back to lie some more and inundate us with more Nelson Muntz impressions?

You don't happen to know our resident Codfish do ya?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#100569 Oct 5, 2013
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
I would first of all like to thank you for your comments, because they show better than I ever could the sort of person I am talking about. I am talking about the sort of person who takes the evidence or facts and then use it to support their argument or what they wish to believe.
Nothing wrong with using facts and evidence to support an argument, however what I "wish" to believe is irrelevant. For example, I don't wish evolution to be correct, nor wish it to be incorrect. I will simply point out that the evidence so far points that way.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
It is clear from the above comments that evidence and truth do not matter to you.
Projection.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
Creationism, Darwinism and the big bang theory. Can you point out to me where in my post and which theory I claim is untrue? The fact is I don't! What I state is that I am not prepared to claim either is true! It is what is called reserving judgement and if a piece of evidence arises that proves beyond doubt that one of the theories is true then and only then would I be prepared to claim either theory is true.
Reality is not dependent upon your ignorance. Just because you personally don't know anything about the subjects being discussed doesn't make them invalid. Therefore your opinions are irrelevant. All I will tell you is that if you say something anti-science one of us here will correct you on it. If you don't like it then you're in the wrong forum.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
It is a statement used to describe exactly what I am saying mostly used to describe the use of numbers, but not solely numbers, to support an argument and make it seem like there is more evidence to support an argument than there is. It is your way of thinking therefore that leads to contradictions and not mine.
Except we have not done that. And what's more, you haven't been able to lay any sort of valid criticism anyway, so your moaning about numbers while tagging it onto your quote about 'lies and statistics' is merely rhetoric.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
My argument is the only one that is true and beyond doubt, because I have simply stated that "nobody can be certain that their theory is true."
NOTHING in science is beyond doubt. If you want absolutism, look at the fundies.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
I mentioned experts in court and it has been proven that they have ignored evidence that disproves their theory in order to strengthen their argument. Which is why I treat all evidence with scepticism unless I can prove it myself.
So one court effs up and therefore all science is in doubt? Which you then type on your computer. Your ignorance of scientific subjects does not change the fact that science you are personally "skeptical" of works. If it didn't you would not have been able to type this IN to your computer to tell us. So again, your point is another dishonest rhetorical strategy. EXACTLY the same as the lying creationists when they say STUPID things like all biology is wrong cuz Global Warming. Then kittens everywhere cry.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#100570 Oct 5, 2013
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
You refer to aliens which once again proves my point. I can go to another country and tell them I can prove that I am an alien. All I need to do then is show them my birth certificate which states I was born in Liverpool. After all I didn't say I was an extra terrestrial alien. Misleading but after all not untrue.
Not misleading at all dependent upon context. Hence clarification can be asked for and given.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
Some people from Birkenhead sound like Scousers, but they aren't Scouse, yet some people believe they are. A Scouser is someone born and bred, like me, in Liverpool.
I know. And not all scousers are uneducated but unfortunately people like you do still fit the stereotype.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
The fact is with any argument we can only take the evidence put in front of us and decide how much weight we attach to it.
And this is your major flaw. You appear to think your opinions are somehow relevant.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
I hear a Scouse accent I dont automatically assume they are from Liverpool and yet others do. I am never wrong because I don't claim they are or aren't Scouse, but those who make claims that they are have a 50/50 chance of being wrong because they have attached to much weight to the evidence.
But you ARE wrong. That is the point. Evolution is the prevailing theory at the moment because it is the one that has the most evidence. In fact it's the ONLY theory that HAS evidence, because other alternative theories simply do not exist. The fact of the matter is that evolution works whether you or I like it or not. And just because you are ignorant of the theory does NOT make it a 50/50 possibility that the theory is false. The fact that YOU arrive at a 50/50 conclusion is NOT a problem for evolution, the problem is that you are too ignorant of the subject to know any better.

This means despite your lack of education, science marches on regardless.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#100571 Oct 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Then tell me,
if n=3 (3 women), and x=(years)
Where can we make the diversity and the structure of the nested hierarchy evident in human haplotypes fit into a scenario?

What would the value of "x" have to be?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#100572 Oct 6, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Then tell me,
if n=3 (3 women), and x=(years)
Where can we make the diversity and the structure of the nested hierarchy evident in human haplotypes fit into a scenario?
What would the value of "x" have to be?
At least 100,000 years.

Since: Sep 13

UK

#100573 Oct 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not misleading at all dependent upon context. Hence clarification can be asked for and given.
<quoted text>
I know. And not all scousers are uneducated but unfortunately people like you do still fit the stereotype.
<quoted text>
And this is your major flaw. You appear to think your opinions are somehow relevant.
<quoted text>
But you ARE wrong. That is the point. Evolution is the prevailing theory at the moment because it is the one that has the most evidence. In fact it's the ONLY theory that HAS evidence, because other alternative theories simply do not exist. The fact of the matter is that evolution works whether you or I like it or not. And just because you are ignorant of the theory does NOT make it a 50/50 possibility that the theory is false. The fact that YOU arrive at a 50/50 conclusion is NOT a problem for evolution, the problem is that you are too ignorant of the subject to know any better.
This means despite your lack of education, science marches on regardless.
You show your ignorance and narrow mindedness by what you write and your ignorance of science as well.

It seems you are on the wrong forum, but if you look I'm sure you will find one solely for bigots.

Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that we must consider all possibilities and yet with one sweeping statement you refuse to consider that there is any other possible theory other than your own, which is exactly what a bigot does. If scientists and inventors did that then no we would not be able to type anything.

The reason we have progressed is because scientists have treated the theories of other scientists with scepticism and done their own experiments so they can reach their own conclusions.

If the world of science was populated only by people like you, then we would be in serious trouble. It needs to be populated by people like myself who don't rule out any theory and treats them all with scepticism, because then and only then can we make any advances.

The evolution theory may well be the prevailing theory at the moment but their is nothing to say that somewhere down the line it will not be found to be a load of rubbish and completely wrong. Science is littered with such instances. Such as the world being flat and anyone who dared to say anything else or espouse any other theory was considered an heretic. A bit like yourself and the idea there could be any theory other than the evolution theory.

The idea of science is that you take the results and reach your own conclusions and not that you parrot the conclusions of the scientist who carried out the experiments.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#100574 Oct 6, 2013
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
<quoted text>
You show your ignorance and narrow mindedness by what you write and your ignorance of science as well....
But you are the one who has more than once referred to creationism as a "theory" when it only marginally qualifies (and with great deal of leeway, at that) as a hypothesis. You have more than once lumped the Big Bang, Evolution and Creation into the same loaf, yet each is profoundly separate from the other in a myriad of ways.
Simply boasting skepticism is hardly the same as being knowledgeable.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#100575 Oct 6, 2013
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
<quoted text>
You show your ignorance and narrow mindedness by what you write and your ignorance of science as well.
It seems you are on the wrong forum, but if you look I'm sure you will find one solely for bigots.
Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that we must consider all possibilities and yet with one sweeping statement you refuse to consider that there is any other possible theory other than your own, which is exactly what a bigot does. If scientists and inventors did that then no we would not be able to type anything.
The reason we have progressed is because scientists have treated the theories of other scientists with scepticism and done their own experiments so they can reach their own conclusions.
If the world of science was populated only by people like you, then we would be in serious trouble. It needs to be populated by people like myself who don't rule out any theory and treats them all with scepticism, because then and only then can we make any advances.
The evolution theory may well be the prevailing theory at the moment but their is nothing to say that somewhere down the line it will not be found to be a load of rubbish and completely wrong. Science is littered with such instances. Such as the world being flat and anyone who dared to say anything else or espouse any other theory was considered an heretic. A bit like yourself and the idea there could be any theory other than the evolution theory.
The idea of science is that you take the results and reach your own conclusions and not that you parrot the conclusions of the scientist who carried out the experiments.
yet many people have considered the creation idea, but since there isn't one shred of evidence to support it, it was dismissed as the proven myth it is...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#100576 Oct 6, 2013
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
<quoted text>
You show your ignorance and narrow mindedness by what you write and your ignorance of science as well.
It seems you are on the wrong forum, but if you look I'm sure you will find one solely for bigots.
Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that we must consider all possibilities and yet with one sweeping statement you refuse to consider that there is any other possible theory other than your own, which is exactly what a bigot does. If scientists and inventors did that then no we would not be able to type anything.
The reason we have progressed is because scientists have treated the theories of other scientists with scepticism and done their own experiments so they can reach their own conclusions.
If the world of science was populated only by people like you, then we would be in serious trouble. It needs to be populated by people like myself who don't rule out any theory and treats them all with scepticism, because then and only then can we make any advances.
The evolution theory may well be the prevailing theory at the moment but their is nothing to say that somewhere down the line it will not be found to be a load of rubbish and completely wrong. Science is littered with such instances. Such as the world being flat and anyone who dared to say anything else or espouse any other theory was considered an heretic. A bit like yourself and the idea there could be any theory other than the evolution theory.
The idea of science is that you take the results and reach your own conclusions and not that you parrot the conclusions of the scientist who carried out the experiments.
Science is being skeptical, that's why it has to have evidence, it has to be repeatable and it has to have peer review. That way everyone is agreeing we see the same exact thing. It also has to be falsifiable, because despite all the above testing we admit we could be wrong, but want to correct and refine the definitions to be as precise as possible.

SCOUSE said...
"If the world of science was populated only by people like you, then we would be in serious trouble. It needs to be populated by people like myself who don't rule out any theory and treats them all with scepticism, because then and only then can we make any advances."

Funny you say this and then say.....
SCOUSE said...

"The evolution theory may well be the prevailing theory at the moment but their is nothing to say that somewhere down the line it will not be found to be a load of rubbish and completely wrong."

Though there were a few scientists before him, who made scientific discoveries as well as many who did follow the scientific method.
Science never concluded the world was flat, Newton is considered the true father of science, by his time we knew the world wasn't flat. The Church rejected science almost exclusively before him.

You rejected evolution without even understanding we know it could
be succeeded by a better explanation. This statement is not the hallmark of skepticism, but it is the trait of the average topix religious fundie.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#100577 Oct 6, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yet many people have considered the creation idea, but since there isn't one shred of evidence to support it, it was dismissed as the proven myth it is...
If science was conducted in the way that he describes, every lab's first order of business would be rubbing sticks together and smashing grain with rocks.
But he's the lone "true" skeptic, fighting the good fight.
Any accumulated and accepted data, information or evidence (or lack thereof) might be/could be/possibly is misleading, therefore IS misleading - therefore, it isn't even "proven" that water can be wet.

Personally, I think somebody was trippin' throughout the weekend Matrix marathon.
spOko

Oakland, CA

#100578 Oct 6, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
But you are the one who has more than once referred to creationism as a "theory" when it only marginally qualifies (and with great deal of leeway, at that) as a hypothesis. You have more than once lumped the Big Bang, Evolution and Creation into the same loaf, yet each is profoundly separate from the other in a myriad of ways.
Simply boasting skepticism is hardly the same as being knowledgeable.
Evolution and Creation? Evolution has created everything we know ... LOL!!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#100579 Oct 6, 2013
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
<quoted text>
You show your ignorance and narrow mindedness by what you write and your ignorance of science as well.
It seems you are on the wrong forum, but if you look I'm sure you will find one solely for bigots.
Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that we must consider all possibilities and yet with one sweeping statement you refuse to consider that there is any other possible theory other than your own, which is exactly what a bigot does. If scientists and inventors did that then no we would not be able to type anything.
The reason we have progressed is because scientists have treated the theories of other scientists with scepticism and done their own experiments so they can reach their own conclusions.
If the world of science was populated only by people like you, then we would be in serious trouble. It needs to be populated by people like myself who don't rule out any theory and treats them all with scepticism, because then and only then can we make any advances.
The evolution theory may well be the prevailing theory at the moment but their is nothing to say that somewhere down the line it will not be found to be a load of rubbish and completely wrong. Science is littered with such instances. Such as the world being flat and anyone who dared to say anything else or espouse any other theory was considered an heretic. A bit like yourself and the idea there could be any theory other than the evolution theory.
The idea of science is that you take the results and reach your own conclusions and not that you parrot the conclusions of the scientist who carried out the experiments.
Boring troll is boring.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100580 Oct 6, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Geologists can answer all of those questions I believe. You might try learning a little bit about the subject....just saying.
Well let me teach you what you failed to mention to show you know about which knowledge would have been useful to state for you to try and put me in a more informed position eh?
Plate tectonics caused by volcanic action created sea/ocean floors. But science has also recently proved that many coastlines continue on into the seas/oceans as if at one time they had been above sea level and some force of nature sank that area.
Science has also shown that all land above sea level was once below sea level being submerged before plate tectonics and volcanoes helped to push molten magma ever upward till land masses were created of which we live upon at present.
So the question still remains you didn't answer. You give the appearance of having a know it all attitude of science. Where was the original seal level? When you consider that question remember that prior to there being any h20 on the earth's surface, theory states volcanos were the cause of steam for a very long, long time of which became our cloud system that released rain for a long, long time that caused the first seas and oceans to exist. And much of that land that was rained on is now sub-sea level.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100581 Oct 6, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
In your opinion, how old is the earth and universe??
My opinion from science's opinion? There's no accurate answer. Newer ways for measuring the age of rocks and such are always coming forth.
Science guesses the universe to be about 13 billion years plus or minus. But it guesses the earth and our solar system to be about four and a half billion years old. Meteorites are being used now to guess the age of the earth and thus the solar system.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100582 Oct 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sea level has changed a bit over the years. During the ice age sea level was about 400 feet lower than it is now.
And "Snowball Earth" was so long ago that the coasts were totally different than they are now.
What underwater features do you think look like they were eroded by water? Please don't say the midocean ridges.
Well we have examples off the Atlantic and Pacific and Gulf of Mexico for three. I read of it but NG did a great job showing these areas in a special called Drain The Ocean. They also mentioned in this special there was enough water on and in the earth to flood it globally above the tallest peaks. But the special was based on info from scientists so you may want to doubt what they claimed :)

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100583 Oct 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, we all know you are a creatard pretending not to be one.
If you took some basic geology you would know that the entire Earth has not been covered with water in over one billion years and why. Looking at landforms and making feral donkey guesses based upon fantasy don't count as "science".
I am? lol Well by your logic that makes you a evotard to you claiming me a creatard. Interesting...NOT! lol... You assume way too much.
If you read as much as you pass gaseous statements full of nothing but stink, you would have mentioned by now to actual creationists that the new theory is that a portion of the Middle east was actually flooded about 7500 years ago and that is where the story had it's beginning and was passed down through many middle eastern cultures to today. Just saying.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#100584 Oct 6, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Well let me teach you what you failed to mention to show you know about which knowledge would have been useful to state for you to try and put me in a more informed position eh?
Plate tectonics caused by volcanic action created sea/ocean floors. But science has also recently proved that many coastlines continue on into the seas/oceans as if at one time they had been above sea level and some force of nature sank that area.
Science has also shown that all land above sea level was once below sea level being submerged before plate tectonics and volcanoes helped to push molten magma ever upward till land masses were created of which we live upon at present.
So the question still remains you didn't answer. You give the appearance of having a know it all attitude of science. Where was the original seal level? When you consider that question remember that prior to there being any h20 on the earth's surface, theory states volcanos were the cause of steam for a very long, long time of which became our cloud system that released rain for a long, long time that caused the first seas and oceans to exist. And much of that land that was rained on is now sub-sea level.
possibly the most awkwardly written opening sentence ever...

did you learn that writing style where you learned about geological history?

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
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 1 min zander 138,833
Hey! Is DILF Back Yet? (Jul '10) 1 min DondoDork 176
I Haven't Had____? In ages (Sep '12) 2 min zander 1,008
How's your weather today? (Mar '12) 4 min DondoDork 5,219
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 5 min late night commer... 28,821
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 5 min DondoDork 7,664
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 6 min SLY WEST 3,374
Why do YOU get on Topix? 6 min Princess Hey 26
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 16 min wichita-rick 155,408
Lets Discuss Men (Dec '13) 45 min Sublime1 564
Body Parts Found in Suitcase: SFPD 3 hr Parden Pard 17
More from around the web