Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221272 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.

Since: Sep 13

UK

#100682 Oct 8, 2013
continued:-

On another post I used the term "bigot" because the definition is :-

"a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race."

I used the word because to completely dismiss someone else's theory on how life might have started is bigoted unless you were there when it all started. I don't dismiss anyone's theory as that to me infers knowledge that I don't have which to me is what ignorance is. I have knowledge of creationism, Darwin's theory of evolution and the big bang theory, but what I don't have is irrefutable proof that either one is true. I lean more towards Darwin's theory being the most possible but only an uneducated fool would claim it to be true and completely dismiss all other theories or a bigot.

I have used the word "clueless" in response to someone else calling me clueless in their post for the same reason, because to me there is nothing more clueless than blindly following a theory and dismissing those of others.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100683 Oct 8, 2013
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
I couldn't help but laugh at those who knock me on here because it is they who show their ignorance.
"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.
You spell scepticism with two C's and not a K and C.
Skepticism can be spelled either way, Mr Know-it-all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
It is Darwin's "THEORY" of evolution and not Darwin's "FACTS" of evolution which is where the ignorance of the Darwin fanatics originates.
Yes, we know that, Mr Obvious.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
I don't reject Darwin's theory of evolution, but I do reject the way some people on here view it and it is they who are ignorant of what Darwin's theory of evolution is and it seems what a theory is. A theory is a set of rules based on facts or evidence in most cases to try and predict what MIGHT happen or what might have happened and not as a lot seem to think on here what will happen or did happen.
Gibberish.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
So the big bang theory, Darwin's theory of evolution or the creationist's theory while they might all have varying degrees of evidence and fact to support them are all like it or not simply theories.
Nope. Not in a scientific sense.

Creationism is not a scientific theory and there are no facts or evidence to support a Genesis creation.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
The problem is you all have more in common than you wish to admit.
Like you and the fundies.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
Darwin, the big bang and creationism all have followers that take them too literally.
Idiotic statement. Literally? What the hell does that mean?
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
People on here clearly don't understand the English language and then label me uneducated and ignorant.
Yeah. You expertise on spelling for example.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
They use the term "certain" when you cannot be certain based upon a theory and their are no degrees of certainty. "certain" means you are sure beyond doubt...
That you're full of it.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
Those on here who accuse me of being ignorant of Darwin's theory of evolution are by, what they say, clearly the ones ignorant of Darwin's theory of evolution. They are also clearly the ones who are ignorant of science.
Sez the 'expert' who obviously does NOT understand what a theory is in science.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
"Simply boasting skepticism is hardly the same as being knowledgeable."
You should take your own advice.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
I don't boast scepticism in regard to the theories but with regard to the significance some people on this site attach to them. A theory as I have said is about what might or could happen and yet some people on here continue to carry on as though they are "certain" to use their words that it did or will happen, but that is not what a theory is.
to be continued:-
Don't bother.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#100684 Oct 8, 2013
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
continued:-
On another post I used the term "bigot" because the definition is :-
"a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race."
I used the word because to completely dismiss someone else's theory on how life might have started is bigoted unless you were there when it all started. I don't dismiss anyone's theory as that to me infers knowledge that I don't have which to me is what ignorance is. I have knowledge of creationism, Darwin's theory of evolution and the big bang theory, but what I don't have is irrefutable proof that either one is true. I lean more towards Darwin's theory being the most possible but only an uneducated fool would claim it to be true and completely dismiss all other theories or a bigot.
I have used the word "clueless" in response to someone else calling me clueless in their post for the same reason, because to me there is nothing more clueless than blindly following a theory and dismissing those of others.
it is not bigoted to dismiss myths that have absolutely no facts or even shreds of evidence to support them.

so you dismiss the myth that the world rests on the back of a giant turtle? how bigoted of you!...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100685 Oct 8, 2013
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
continued:-
On another post I used the term "bigot" because the definition is :-
"a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race."
I used the word because to completely dismiss someone else's theory on how life might have started is bigoted unless you were there when it all started.
Yet another fundie trademark.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
I don't dismiss anyone's theory as that to me infers knowledge that I don't have which to me is what ignorance is. I have knowledge of creationism, Darwin's theory of evolution and the big bang theory, but what I don't have is irrefutable proof that either one is true.
So what? Do you think all of science is based on what YOU think is irrefutable proof? You can stay in la-la-land.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
I lean more towards Darwin's theory being the most possible but only an uneducated fool would claim it to be true and completely dismiss all other theories or a bigot.
And only an uneducated fool (hint: mirror) would think that any scientifically literate (yourself excluded) would claim that ANY theory is true. That terminology is never used. They would only state that a theory was the best current explanation.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
I have used the word "clueless" in response to someone else calling me clueless in their post for the same reason, because to me there is nothing more clueless than blindly following a theory and dismissing those of others.
The only one blind here is you. You are uneducated - as evidence by your ridiculous comments - and you are clueless as to what science actually is or what it states. You have a 3rd grade comic book idea of it all.

Hell, you obviously can't tell the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. Painfully obvious.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#100686 Oct 8, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Skepticism can be spelled either way, Mr Know-it-all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
ahh..those great differences in US and British spellings...

saved my ass in Boggle many times!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#100687 Oct 8, 2013
and Scrabble, their dictionary takes them also...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#100688 Oct 8, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>ahh..those great differences in US and British spellings...
saved my ass in Boggle many times!
Yup, good old English. Since jolly old England was overrun by almost every European country at some time or another its spelling is morass that leads to competitions that don't seem to exist in other countries, spelling bees.

America tried to clean up the language a bit. Superfluous letters were dropped, inconsistent spelling corrected, but we only went so far. There are still multiple pronunciations of letter combinations "ough" has something like eight different pronunciations in England.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#100689 Oct 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
America tried to clean up the language a bit.
and we did it all in the "purfuit of happineff"....

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#100690 Oct 8, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
horse = house, through = trough. If I didn't know better I'd suspect that your autospell is divinely guided to display exasperation with religie livestock.
In any case, the open/closed SLoT argument for/against is an incredibly obvious failure, and anybody with a half a brain would realize that it simply doesn't apply.
People who highlight minor grammar points are amazing
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/pe...

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#100691 Oct 8, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>and we did it all in the "purfuit of happineff"....

I bet when you go BuRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! it's more intense than my burrrrr. lol j/k

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#100692 Oct 8, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
People who highlight minor grammar points are amazing
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/pe...
I haven't made any comment about grammar in at least a couple of weeks. I was making note of plays on words. You know, like autospell --> God's spell --> gospel. Does God speak to us or OS?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#100693 Oct 8, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't made any comment about grammar in at least a couple of weeks. I was making note of plays on words. You know, like autospell --> God's spell --> gospel. Does God speak to us or OS?
You'uns maybe. Not to me.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#100694 Oct 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet when you go BuRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! it's more intense than my burrrrr. lol j/k
well sure, mine is in caps.(other than that, i dont get it....)

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#100695 Oct 8, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>well sure, mine is in caps.(other than that, i dont get it....)

I looked it up, you're in Minnesota. It never gets quite that burrr here. Do you know how to trap a polar bear? LOL

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#100696 Oct 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I looked it up, you're in Minnesota. It never gets quite that burrr here. Do you know how to trap a polar bear? LOL
oh, that kind of brrrrrrr...(we usually leave out the 'u'...)

natch, where i winter i'm pretty close to the coast of Lake Superior so we never get below -35 F (guess F or C doesn't really matter much there...) now north central Minnesota, they get some serious cold....i'm kind of on the riviera of the northland...

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#100697 Oct 8, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>oh, that kind of brrrrrrr...(we usually leave out the 'u'...)
natch, where i winter i'm pretty close to the coast of Lake Superior so we never get below -35 F (guess F or C doesn't really matter much there...) now north central Minnesota, they get some serious cold....i'm kind of on the riviera of the northland...
Only -35? I'd have to build me a space suit lol.

How to trap a polar bear.

When the lake freezes, drive out on it and chop a hole in the ice making a huge pile of ice to one side. Drop the fishing line in the hole, and when you catch a fish put it in front of the hole.
Then hide behind the pile of ice you made earlier.
When the polar bear comes to get the fish, run out from behind the ice pile and kick the polar bear in the ice hole.:)
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#100698 Oct 8, 2013
Evolution doesn't say we evolved from monkeys or apes. You seem to be severely religitarded.
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And yet according to evolution, he evolved from the monkeys(apes). Hi, Miky?
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#100699 Oct 8, 2013
You need to look up the meaning of a scientific theory, you have it wrong. Perhaps you could cite the evidence that exists to support creationism. Do you have scientific evidence of a talking snake?
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
I couldn't help but laugh at those who knock me on here because it is they who show their ignorance.
Atheist and calling me or trying to assign me the traits of a religious fundamentalist is ridiculous to say the least. The fact is I do not reject or disbelieve Darwin's theory of evolution, but unlike the Darwin fanatics I recognise it for what it is.
It is Darwin's "THEORY" of evolution and not Darwin's "FACTS" of evolution which is where the ignorance of the Darwin fanatics originates.
There is no doubt that there is plenty of evidence and facts to support it, but you lose site of what Charles Darwin was trying to do. He was not for want of a better word trying to write a bible to be followed religiously on evolution. What he tried to do is put forward from his observations his theory on how life might have evolved on planet earth. If he was trying to do otherwise he would have called it Darwin's facts of evolution.
I don't reject Darwin's theory of evolution, but I do reject the way some people on here view it and it is they who are ignorant of what Darwin's theory of evolution is and it seems what a theory is. A theory is a set of rules based on facts or evidence in most cases to try and predict what MIGHT happen or what might have happened and not as a lot seem to think on here what will happen or did happen.
So the big bang theory, Darwin's theory of evolution or the creationist's theory while they might all have varying degrees of evidence and fact to support them are all like it or not simply theories. The problem is you all have more in common than you wish to admit.
Darwin, the big bang and creationism all have followers that take them too literally.
People on here clearly don't understand the English language and then label me uneducated and ignorant. They use the term "certain" when you cannot be certain based upon a theory and their are no degrees of certainty. "certain" means you are sure beyond doubt that something as or will happen in the way you say and there is no chance of there being any other result or it having happened in any other way.
Those on here who accuse me of being ignorant of Darwin's theory of evolution are by, what they say, clearly the ones ignorant of Darwin's theory of evolution. They are also clearly the ones who are ignorant of science.
The whole idea of science and Darwin's theory of evolution is that you look at the results and reach your own conclusions and not that you treat it as some sort of bible. The theory is the conclusions of that scientist based upon the results of his observations or the results of the experiments he carried out.
As an Atheist I don't believe in god, I don't believe in religion but unlike some on here I'm not a fanatic about any of them.
The fact is like it or not whether it is Darwin, the big bang or even creationism we could find that there is some sort of truth in them all. To dismiss such an idea is to show your ignorance, because unless present, which is impossible, when life began we can't be certain of anything and so must consider the possibility that their might be a grain of truth in any theory put forward.
"Simply boasting skepticism is hardly the same as being knowledgeable."
I don't boast scepticism in regard to the theories but with regard to the significance some people on this site attach to them. A theory as I have said is about what might or could happen and yet some people on here continue to carry on as though they are "certain" to use their words that it did or will happen, but that is not what a theory is.
to be continued:-

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#100700 Oct 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Only -35? I'd have to build me a space suit lol.
How to trap a polar bear.
When the lake freezes, drive out on it and chop a hole in the ice making a huge pile of ice to one side. Drop the fishing line in the hole, and when you catch a fish put it in front of the hole.
Then hide behind the pile of ice you made earlier.
When the polar bear comes to get the fish, run out from behind the ice pile and kick the polar bear in the ice hole.:)
no polar bears here, just black bears and they sleep in the winter.

we do plenty of ice fishing and yes, our winter gear these days is much like a space suit. we can be on the ice all day at -10 f in total comfort... here's a link to what minnesotans do for fun in the winter. the last few years it has been below zero for most of the day on the event, 2-4 years ago well, well below zero fahrenheit and we still had over ten thousand people out on the ice...check the photos under media and press drop down...

http://icefishing.org/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#100701 Oct 9, 2013
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
unlike the Darwin fanatics I recognise it for what it is.
No you don't.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
It is Darwin's "THEORY" of evolution and not Darwin's "FACTS" of evolution which is where the ignorance of the Darwin fanatics originates.
Scientific theories contain facts. Theory is as high as it gets in science. They NEVER get "proven" to become "laws".
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
He was not for want of a better word trying to write a bible to be followed religiously on evolution.
Which is why it's no longer his theory, and is now called the modern evolutionary synthesis.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
A theory is a set of rules based on facts or evidence in most cases to try and predict what MIGHT happen or what might have happened and not as a lot seem to think on here what will happen or did happen.
A theory is an explanatory framework based on facts and evidence which makes successful scientific predictions. In short, evolution is the best, and in fact the only explanation for biodiversity here on Earth.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
So the big bang theory, Darwin's theory of evolution or the creationist's theory while they might all have varying degrees of evidence and fact to support them are all like it or not simply theories.
Wrong. First creationism is not a theory and has no evidence. Second, in science THEORY is as high as it gets. If something reaches the point of being a scientific theory this is a GOOD thing. It means it's a scientific model that works.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
People on here clearly don't understand the English language and then label me uneducated and ignorant. They use the term "certain" when you cannot be certain based upon a theory and their are no degrees of certainty.
No, there ARE degrees of certainty, but always the possibility for future falsification.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
The whole idea of science and Darwin's theory of evolution is that you look at the results and reach your own conclusions and not that you treat it as some sort of bible.
No, the whole idea of the theory of evolution is ancestry via common descent. The whole idea of science is that scientists come to their own conclusions based on the evidence. They have concluded that evolution is the best scientific explanation for biodiversity here on Earth.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
As an Atheist I don't believe
Your beliefs are irrelevant.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
The fact is like it or not whether it is Darwin, the big bang or even creationism we could find that there is some sort of truth in them all.
You can't follow "fact" with "could". Fact is two of those have evidence, one doesn't.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
I don't boast scepticism in regard to the theories but with regard to the significance some people on this site attach to them. A theory as I have said is about what might or could happen and yet some people on here continue to carry on as though they are "certain" to use their words that it did or will happen, but that is not what a theory is.
The reason why you are met with such certainty is because of the strength of evidence supporting the theory. That doesn't mean science is "100% certain", as to be a scientific concept there has to be leaway for falsifiability. It's just that no-one's falsified it yet. And based on the evidence thus far, doesn't look like that's gonna happen soon.

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 two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 12 min On this Day 6,562
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 18 min wichita-rick 215,425
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 27 min On this Day 7,576
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 41 min On this Day 46,440
News Chicago artist creates a mural of Michelle Obam... 57 min Princess Finny Ferry 16
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 1 hr Jennifer Renee 23,614
What Is Your DREAM JOB? 1 hr Princess Finny Ferry 45
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr 8541 MARINE 74,322
A to Z songs by title or group! 5 hr liam cul8r 1,583
More from around the web