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
95,041 - 95,060 of 113,003 Comments Last updated 10 hrs ago

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100532
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100533
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100534
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100535
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100536
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100537
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100539
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100540
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100541
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100542
Oct 4, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Excuse the shite reference but it was the first on the list:

http://metro.co.uk/2008/12/31/early-earth-was...

Of course this in no way helps creationists.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100543
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100544
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100545
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100546
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SCOUSE71UK wrote:
"Aura Mytha wrote:- From the first two sentences you reveal yourself to be clueless . It is the defining line that is quite effective at eliminating all future correspondence, in the matter . It would suffice that your information that ,you to pronounce your intentions simply by saying , that YOU DO NOT KNOW.
I have all the power in this world over this this concept.
You do not know..... But I do."
You reveal yourself to be the clueless one as you even neglect to close the quotation marks.
You also reveal yourself to be the clueless one as in a question such as "How did life begin with creationism or the big bang theory?" a person can only believe. In order to state that they know they would have to be able to present evidence that proves beyond doubt that what they claim is true and at this moment in time nobody as within their possession such evidence. If they did then we would not be having this debate.
There is no debate. Not a scientific one, anyway. Not here at least.

In science one uses evidence to demonstrate a concept. For instance in cosmology, the Big Bang theory successfully predicts cosmic background radiation with an accuracy of 3 parts per million. So until you come up with a scientific alternative which does a better job of explaining the evidence, science goes with the theory that works.

Since we know you don't have a better alternative your baseless criticisms against scientific concepts you don't like because you don't understand them can be discarded and ignored.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100547
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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.
Right, so you've never claimed there was a Biblical global flood, but you've vehemently chastised us for rejecting the possibility despite the complete and total lack of evidence and mounds of evidence against it. So your whole point here is that it MIGHT be true.

Because invisible Jewish magic MIGHT be true.

Same as the Cosmic Sheep.

Big whoop.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100548
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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.
It's my shallow narrow restrictive opinion that a 40 stone fat guy is not gonna pass through a six inch gap between two house size blocks of solid metal. At least not intact.

See that's the problem here NS, is that sometimes reality CAN be somewhat restrictive towards myths and fantasies.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100549
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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?
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?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100550
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times has "the evidence" in any and everything been wrong?
Probably every one of your posts.

Problem?(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100551
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text> Go run you COWARD!
Again this tool can't back up the BS they try to pedal here.
You don't know chit!!!
What do you know?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••