Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216598 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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102542 Oct 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no evidence. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. No evidence of any kind that life can create itself, not physical evidence, testimonial, circumstantial or even anecdotal. None.
There is none. No one can show scientific proof that life can create itself. No one has ever created life in a science lab, even under the most favorable conditions possible. So if "intelligent" human beings cannot create life, how is life supposed to have come into existence by itself?
If even the most intelligent organism can't create life then why is it a good idea to think that intelligence is needed to create life?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#102543 Oct 22, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
"The key to building life has been discovered"!
Please return to us old Aura Mytha and bestow upon mankind the secret of life!
Sucking bone, Mike F, Woodtick and Dude will not share the secret. Only you can open the sacred text to reveal it!
I've answered you, Blow Hard. Repeatedly. You don't want answers. You don't want an honest conversation. You just want to crap all over the forum.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102544 Oct 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
If you, IF ANYBODY HERE, has evidence that life can create itself, post it.
...
Go google your little ass off.
I didn't need google. I posted it before you posted this. You said you didn't understand. Not our problem.(shrug)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#102545 Oct 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor bohart, still playing the fool.
And quite well, I might add.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102547 Oct 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Nothing.
But that experiment is not natural, it's forced.
No more so than a plant growing in a plant pot is forced. You claim therefore that all plants on Earth required an intelligent planter. This isn't the case.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Even if they succeeded in creating life, which they haven't even got close to, that wouldn't mean that life could create itself naturally.
That man-made life would have a creator - man.
Just like man has a creator - God.
Just like God has a creator. Cue fundie hypocrisy in 3, 2, 1...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102548 Oct 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Bullshit. There's evidence of God all over the place. Thousands of testimonials are out there for you to read.
It may only be anecdotal evidence,
Uhuh. Like Jesus appearing on a dog's backside.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
but that's more evidence than abiogenesis has.
Wrong. But fundies like yourself don't let facts get in the way.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102549 Oct 22, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
The usual from you,....nothing.
You are a liar for the goo, nothing more
Hey Bo, why don'cha stop whining and breaking the irony meters and actually address an argument for once?

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#102550 Oct 22, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. Because the whole flying part is acceptable. ;)
For those who believe a god did it by magic then a flying reindeer should pose no problem whatsoever.

Aren’t those flying reindeer steaks expensive?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102551 Oct 22, 2013
bohart wrote:
You are not ignorant, no, you are dumb.
I didn't ask you about God, I asked for evidence and there is none, listen dumbass.........
I did, and addressed every single point of your argument. Your argument is flawed. You have yet to address those flaws.
bohart wrote:
Fossils only TELL YOU THERE WERE LIVING CREATURES, NOT HOW THEY CAME TO LIFE you fantastic moron.
Irrelevant. The fossils tell us that once there was life and before that there were no fossils, and no evidence of life to speak of. Therefore no matter how you cut it, life came from non-life. It doesn't matter if it happened naturally, by aliens, by God, or by something else. This is a fact.
bohart wrote:
Give us all the empirical, observable scientific evidence of how life began.... You can't, there is none.
Always told ya we don't know the specifics yet. However the evidence is indisputable that it DID happen.
bohart wrote:
All you can do is idiotically rail against God, Jew magic etc. That's why you do it, because you can't face reality, and that's this,...
Actually I have faced reality. You haven't. That's why you won't actually address the content of my posts. You just repeat your stupid argument as if it helps you. It doesn't. It never will. I wouldn't be railing against God if you wouldn't use it as a stupid argument. But since you've already used it as a stupid argument and you have had those flaws pointed out to you it's too late.

Now all you do is whine.
bohart wrote:
There is no scientific explanation for how life began.
There is currently in existence just ONE scientific hypothesis, and just one idea which is not only currently under research by various scientific organisations across the world, but the only one that CAN. That's because so far no-one's come up with a better idea.

Still waiting for you to go and knock on Harvard's door and tell them there's not enough Jewmagic in their equations.(shrug)

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#102552 Oct 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what you know, that air and ionizing radiation can be seen, which is why I said air and ionizing radiation can be seen.
Wrong, I know they cannot be seen, and I can prove it, which is something you are unwilling to do and can’t do.

“Jon Snow”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#102553 Oct 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory I spoke of is the one of whereafter the earth being a molten ball of lava began to cool and an outer crust formed and the center began to solidify, the crust remained hot. Volcanoes more numerous than we'll ever imagine with the beginning of plate tectonics expelled a mixture of gasses and as the crust continued to cool and thicken, it rained. And it rained. It rained for a long undetermined amount of time but it rained so much it caused the first seas and oceans to appear. But it's theorized because the crust was still thin and warm, the water on top didn't penetrate very deeply into the crust so much of the earth's water was top surface. This is believed because every mountain rage from the youngest to the oldest all show signs of having been pushed up from under seas and or oceans.
Yes the seabeds were pushed up, but until several years ago none of the primordial supercontinent had been found and was thought to have been recycled long ago. It was found, and it out dates the sea , this means the crust was pushing up out of the molten lava before the ocean was there.

So when the ocean formed and other parts of Vaalbara were pushing up the Earth was forming dynamically and rising and falling land masses suggest there may never been a time when all the surface was covered by water at the same time.
The evidence is suggesting the old views were incorrect , as a 4.2 billion year old continent is older than a 3.8 billion year old ocean.

http://www3.uni-bonn.de/Press-releases/a-new-...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102554 Oct 22, 2013
bohart wrote:
Oh hell tick! not only hasn't it been repeated or seen , there's been no experiments even close. Since no part of abiogenesis, life starting on it's own , passes the scientific method, why do you faithfully believe it.
Actually since it passes the scientific method every day, abiogenesis (under scientific research - that means they're using the scientific method by the way Bo), life starting on its own (plants - not intelligent - that means they share your IQ), all what you can't admit for theological reasons.
bohart wrote:
as for your building blocks? shouldn't the winds and tides be stirring life constantly.
Not necessarily, as the early Earth had a much different environment than it does today. So it may be that those environmental specifics were needed. Or it could be happening all over the show, but since the Earth is already flooded with life, any such microscopic events would be virtually impossible to spot and would by absorbed by the local biosphere anyway.

Doesn't matter, since life is here it's pretty obvious to most people with a functioning brain that abiogenesis, in one form or another, occurred.

Now the only question is whether it required Jewmagic or not.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102555 Oct 22, 2013
bohart wrote:
Cause and effect, is universally accepted and followed in every field of science , it relates every phenomenon as an effect to a cause. No effect is quantitatively greater nor qualitatively superior to it's cause . An effect can be lower than it's cause but never greater.
The self evident truth is simple, rational deduction that all we see is an effect which demands a very great supernatural cause. The sun the moon and stars could not have come from nothing. That's irrational to the human mind . Phenomenon's in the universe can be explained in terms of something else that caused it. But when the phenomenon is the existence of the universe and of life , there is nothing in the universe to explain it. There is no natural explanation
So nothing can be uncaused.

Except God of course.

Obviously you've never heard of quantum physics.

Of course none of this is even relevant to abiogenesis, as that is distinctly a cause and effect event.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102556 Oct 22, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you really don't expect Buck to know what a scientific theory is, do you? i'm surprised he can tie his shoes....
Velcro is a wonderful thing

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#102557 Oct 22, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Ignorance in the highest order. You are the one that is babbling not the bible.
Wrong

I provide the evidence and you contradicted the babble. Not my problem, but yours to live with.

You appear to be suffering from weapons grade stupidity
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Yes imaginary, but invisible, they exist, because going from west to east, you gain a whole day, while going from east to west, you lose a whole day. This is reality. NUTS!
Nope, not invisible, the do not exist so haw can visibly of any degree come into it?

So does this day/date change for say a whale swimming across the “date line”?

How about migrating birds?

These imaginary lines, along with date are arbitrary and based on mathematics and consensus.
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Yes, science has. That is why it can not completely answer man's pressing problems. God's judgements is/ are always justified.
You are confused, your weapons grade stupidity strikes again. Science has answered many of humanities pressing problems, but not all, for two reasons, one, a solution may not be viable to a manmade problem and two we may not yet have the understanding, but unlike godbots, science is working toward solutions. Both concepts are completely beyond your weapons grade stupidity of “doh, I don unnerstan so it mus be god wot did it”

So you are saying genocide, child murder, slavery and rape are justified. Fair enough, just so long as we know where we stand with you.
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I never disagreed on the bible mentioning other gods or goddesses. But the bible also specifically mentioned the ineffective nature of those gods. So, why should we worship something made with our hands?
Yes you did, you said “there is one god” and the babble tells you otherwise, it was not until this was pointed out to you that you changes you mind.

I can ask the same question, why should we worship something made in the minds of bronze age goat herders and escaped slaves?
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Tell that to yourself. Like i said, God is one. Many faiths sees him in many different lights. He should not be worshipped through any mediums, that is where many faiths are getting it wrong.
What you say is irrelevant. Only 3 faiths, three is not many unless you count – one – two - many – lots.

So you are saying the positions of priests and popes and preachers is wrong.
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Good! So you have admitted, that science has its own limitations. It can not accurately test and observed every FACTS. Period.
I have never denied otherwise. However science can observe and test facts, the thing you gets you going is the fact that it cannot test and observe myth.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102558 Oct 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...ah not. The difference is you spend time arguing whether Noah and his flood did or didn't happen and I don't. That's our difference lol...to funny....
Uh, except for the fact you did. Which is why you got corrected in the first place.(shrug)

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#102559 Oct 22, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory boy, is that winds blowing random molecules into primordial seas stirred by tides created life! Now Aura And sucking bone have the evidence that this occurred but won't share it with the those who are not members of their cult
Okay, you've shown your contempt of this use of poetic license by Nova for several pages now. Regardless of whatever you have read in however many of your Apologist bloggers' articles, it is little more than an obscure and superficial piece of flowery narration from a single pop science episode.
The reason that you don't get any "satisfactory" replies (about abiogenesis or anything else)is probably because most have been here long enough to know you are just baiting again. You've scoffed at and dismissed the serious answers and links that have been provided and you proceed to launch unceasing personal attacks on those who have provided them. You've made it consistently and abundantly clear that you've got nothing but willful antagonism, ignorance, hostility, intolerance and prejudice and you want nothing but backlash.
Don't btch when you get what you came for and leave with no more than what you've brought.
- and to the room: Sorry, I know I just belabored the obvious.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#102560 Oct 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, you've shown your contempt of this use of poetic license by Nova for several pages now. Regardless of whatever you have read in however many of your Apologist bloggers' articles, it is little more than an obscure and superficial piece of flowery narration from a single pop science episode.
The reason that you don't get any "satisfactory" replies (about abiogenesis or anything else)is probably because most have been here long enough to know you are just baiting again. You've scoffed at and dismissed the serious answers and links that have been provided and you proceed to launch unceasing personal attacks on those who have provided them. You've made it consistently and abundantly clear that you've got nothing but willful antagonism, ignorance, hostility, intolerance and prejudice and you want nothing but backlash.
Don't btch when you get what you came for and leave with no more than what you've brought.
- and to the room: Sorry, I know I just belabored the obvious.
Perhaps but spot on nonetheless.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#102561 Oct 22, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you tried reading the article?
"Geologists who have studied upright fossils found in sedimentary rocks exposed in various outcrops for the last 30 years have described the upright fossil trees as being deeply rooted in place and typically rooted in recognizable paleosols. This is in sharp contrast to the claims made by creationists such as Harold Coffin and N. A. Rupke. Geologists, such as Falcon[10][11][12][13][14] and Rygel et al.,[15] have published detailed field sketches and pictures of upright tree fossils with intact root systems, which are rooted within recognizable paleosols. In case of the upright fossil trees of the Yellowstone petrified forests, geologists – again in sharp disagreement with creationists like Harold Coffin – found that the upright fossil trees, except for relatively short stumps, are rooted in place within the underlying sediments. Typically, the sediments within which trees are rooted have paleosols developed within them.[9][16][17] Either pictures or diagrams of the Yellowstone upright fossil trees having intact root systems developed within paleosols found within these strata have been published in Retallack (1981, 1997).[16][17][18]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossi...
Wiki missed that the Park Service removed the old forest story signs after Coffin's and Austin's work there. Those layered "ancient forests" had trees of all the same age and the root masses were missing, just like at St. Helen's. In coal mine's we find the same polystrate petrified logs and have to go around or blast them out, Proof positive that Steve Austin got it right,(see his video),long before St Helen's. These same depositions are found in flood deposits in Oregon - petrified upright logs. Sorry, but Wiki is the most evolution biased source there is.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#102562 Oct 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I did address your last question. You chose to ignore the reply to pretend I didn't answer it. You asked...
"Isn't circumstantial evidence also known as facts? You better get back to me on that one as well."
I said yes. But not all the time is it true as circumstantial evidence is based on everything from hearsay to facts, that's why it's called 'circumstantial evidence' because it lacks 'direct substantiated facts'.
You did? I must have missed it in all the debris. Are you sure I chose to ignore it? That doesn't seem like me. Oh my stars and garters.

Hearsay is not circumstantial evidence. This is exactly what you state with no qualification.

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 14 min Paris France 206,721
All Christmas Carols/Songs and Quotes.. 39 min Emerald 6
News Church fined $12,000 for helping homeless new 46 min Emerald 16
4 Word Game (Use Same Letter) (Dec '14) 1 hr Poppyann 1,371
Poll I love you because.............. (Mar '09) 1 hr Enzo49 4,674
Let's play "follow the word" (Jun '08) 1 hr Poppyann 48,227
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 1 hr Poppyann 61,039
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 2 hr Poppyann 10,554
Poll Do You Have A Topix Crush? (2014 Version) (Oct '14) 2 hr Poppyann 103
Start a sentence in alphabetical order.. 5 hr Spotted Girl 1,547
More from around the web