Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222784 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 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#104021 Oct 31, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible is not "evidence".
It's a story.
Much of it myth, allegory, and parable. Much of the rest of it is just inaccurate from a science and history perspective.
If the mountain ranges had only formed within the past 4500 years as you contend, the heat generated by those incredibly massive forces would render the surface of the planet molten and sterile to this day.
In short, your contention of the recent forming of the world's mountain ranges is false.
Moreover, we would appreciate it if you would please present a bible verse that says the mountain ranges didn't form until after your (non-existent) Flood.
But the Bible is evidence. The Bible has thousands of item in it that could not have possible been known but was written long before science figured it out.

So you would rather believe things like what Stephen Hawking said. As bout how time started. Paraphrasing: there was no before the big bang because time started at point of the Big Bang when all the laws of the universe break down.

There is NO POINT where the laws of the universe break down! That would require being outside of the universe which is impossible.

Universe: ALL that is known or postulated.

There is no outside of that definition of the universe.
But you all believe that myth.

Times existence is proof of a creator.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104022 Oct 31, 2013
SBT wrote:
I have no intention of leaving reality to join the evolutionary dilution. You folks get to learn a lot about that little proton motor in coming posts.
Actually we learned nothing from you about biology. You don't have the slightest clue about the subject making it impossible for you to teach anything.(shrug)
SBT wrote:
Your Time God looking a little tipsy? To think of it, the whole of evolutionary biology and long ages toppled by a tiny little proton engine, little Big engine we should say.
When did that happen? In 2064?

You can keep making this claim all you like, but it still doesn't change the fact that we debunked your BS, evolution remains unaffected, and even the guy who you got your BS from failed to get his claims past scientific peer-review. He's now touring the church circuit fleecing money off rubes like you and giving speeches about how they were so mean to him at Dover.
SBT wrote:
Lots of words and pictures vs an ever increasing volume of evidence for design and complexity.
How is "complexity" measured? What mechanisms are responsible for design? How is design determined? How does invisible Jewmagic pass the scientific method?

Thanks in advance for again avoiding all our questions.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104023 Oct 31, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
Furthermore, the basic assumptions (axioms) for any system are unproved.
Darn. That's inconvenient.

For fundies that is.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#104024 Oct 31, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
But the Bible is evidence. The Bible has thousands of item in it that could not have possible been known but was written long before science figured it out.
such as?

how do you know time doesn't end in a singularity?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104025 Oct 31, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
But the Bible is evidence. The Bible has thousands of item in it that could not have possible been known but was written long before science figured it out.
Yeah, then science figured out the Earth WASN'T a flat square circle at the centre of a geocentric universe.

Then it figured out everything else we knew from scratch without using the Bible at all, and only AFTER all that hard work was done by science the fundies were able to tell us they knew this all along. I mean how else would we know that donkeys can't talk when the Bible tells us that donkeys can't talk.

Oh wait. It tells us they CAN talk. Uh...
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Times existence is proof of a creator.
Even if we go with that it still doesn't mean that a creator is necessarily intelligent.

We know it can't be, otherwise it wouldn't rely on fundies to promote it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104026 Oct 31, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
HEY!!!!
>:-(
I am just assuming, Mr. Kong, that being a giant gorilla you have a giant brain too. Please take no offence.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104027 Oct 31, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
But the Bible is evidence. The Bible has thousands of item in it that could not have possible been known but was written long before science figured it out.
So you would rather believe things like what Stephen Hawking said. As bout how time started. Paraphrasing: there was no before the big bang because time started at point of the Big Bang when all the laws of the universe break down.
There is NO POINT where the laws of the universe break down! That would require being outside of the universe which is impossible.
Universe: ALL that is known or postulated.
There is no outside of that definition of the universe.
But you all believe that myth.
Times existence is proof of a creator.
Yes we all know there is a passage in the Bible that discusses the Big Bang and also the fact that the earth orbits the Sun and the Solar system is part of one galaxy among many billions etc.

You could claim that David dropping a rock was evidence of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, the way you play it. For how could David drop a rock, to the ancients, if they did not have God given knowledge that mass warps space time in such a way that a rock falls because it follows the path of least resistance in a warped space time field? Obviously any record of dropping a rock would be proof that the ancients understood general relativity, thanks to God.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#104028 Oct 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am just assuming, Mr. Kong, that being a giant gorilla you have a giant brain too. Please take no offence.
a goriila, oh my, i just thought he was a Kardashian and didn't want to say anythng...

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#104029 Oct 31, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Going from east to west, you lose a whole day, while going east from west, a whole day is gained, this days lost or gained, will also affects the time. The time in New York can never be the same with the ones in London. It is real and not imaginary.
So if I traveled east to west at a rate of one rotation per 24 hrs, would I stay young forever?
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#104030 Oct 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes we all know there is a passage in the Bible that discusses the Big Bang and also the fact that the earth orbits the Sun and the Solar system is part of one galaxy among many billions etc.
You could claim that David dropping a rock was evidence of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, the way you play it. For how could David drop a rock, to the ancients, if they did not have God given knowledge that mass warps space time in such a way that a rock falls because it follows the path of least resistance in a warped space time field? Obviously any record of dropping a rock would be proof that the ancients understood general relativity, thanks to God.
You seem to confuse proof with evidence.

In fact you seem confused.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#104031 Oct 31, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to confuse proof with evidence.
In fact you seem confused.
In fact you confuse nonesense with evidence all the time.

you are , in fact, confused all the time.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104032 Oct 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet people who know the subject far better than you have no problem researching. They keep getting closer and closer to an answer.
Though not as totally brain dead idiotic as either SBT or bohart you are getting close when you make as foolish of a post as this.
You do realize that time is a problem. They don't have the time it would have taken life to form naturally in the lab to run an experiment from from only the basic ingredients to life itself. Let's be kind and say it took only a million years for life to form naturally. How are they going to reproduce those million years in the laboratory.
It is moronic in the extreme to claim that just because they have not reproduced the whole nonlife to life in the laboratory to claim that abiogenesis is a crock.
Ha,Ha,Ha, sucking bone the Apostle of the time God! just throw a few chemicals together , stir with the tides and cover with the blanket of a million years and shazzam! life! You are a comically idiotic moron. Time is not a mechanism to transform non living matter to living matter ! You are so faith driven that nothing is too imbecilic to be accepted as plausible, except of course a creator, now that's impossible !but only in the puddle goo sect.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104033 Oct 31, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
But the Bible is evidence. The Bible has thousands of item in it that could not have possible been known but was written long before science figured it out.
No, it doesn't. It has thousands of items that have been reinterpreted in light of today's science. They were not known then, and in fact if you read the Bible in context it does not make any amazing discoveries.
So you would rather believe things like what Stephen Hawking said. As bout how time started. Paraphrasing: there was no before the big bang because time started at point of the Big Bang when all the laws of the universe break down.
There is NO POINT where the laws of the universe break down! That would require being outside of the universe which is impossible.
Universe: ALL that is known or postulated.
There is no outside of that definition of the universe.
But you all believe that myth.
Times existence is proof of a creator.
You misunderstood what he wrote. He never claimed that the Laws of the Universe broke down. He claims, and rightly so, that there are points where the man written theories break down.

You problems is that you don't have a clues as to what scientists say and all you can do is to make strawman arguments. Strawman arguments only convince other ignorant fools.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104034 Oct 31, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha,Ha,Ha, sucking bone the Apostle of the time God! just throw a few chemicals together , stir with the tides and cover with the blanket of a million years and shazzam! life! You are a comically idiotic moron. Time is not a mechanism to transform non living matter to living matter ! You are so faith driven that nothing is too imbecilic to be accepted as plausible, except of course a creator, now that's impossible !but only in the puddle goo sect.
Poor bohart. His brain looks like it will be permanently underdeveloped.

Still I would help him learn if he ever had a clue to the errors of his ways.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104035 Oct 31, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Not only does your post have nothing to do with the linky he presented you got it totally wrong by not taking non-random factors into account.
In other words, you are a real live Intelligent Falling proponent.
"It is one thing to explain the occurrence of heads on a single coin toss by appealing to chance, it is quite another to take the view that ,..the specific sequence of nucleotides in the DNA molecule of the first organism came about by a purely random process in the early history of the earth"

Bernd Olaf Kuppers

" We can accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not to much,. In our theory of how we came to exist , we are allowed to postulate a certain ration of luck. This ration has as it's upper limit, the number of eligible planets in the universe,...We therefore have at our disposal ,odds of 1 in 100 billion ,billion as an upper limit to spend in our theory on the origin of life. This is the maximum amount of luck we are allowed to postulate in our theory . Suppose we want to suggest, for instance ,that life began when both DNA and it's protein based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed a 100 billion billion to one"

Richard Dawkins

Notice ! no mechanisms , no working hypothesis, no experimental success .just random chance as the origin of life!
Fascinating! a scientific theory based on astronomical luck! The entire basis of this myth is that given enough time and chance virtually anything can happen!, even inanimate matter , completely random ,can create the information to self organize and spring to life.. the fools roulette wheel!

..and the Dud makes fun of magic! ha,ha,ha.

If you fools want to continue to defend your faith, have at it! but don't call it science.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#104036 Oct 31, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>"Supper at such an hour!
My stars and garters! who would be,
To have such guests, a landlady"
A Journey to Oxford?

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104037 Oct 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor bohart. His brain looks like it will be permanently underdeveloped.
Still I would help him learn if he ever had a clue to the errors of his ways.
I understand you can't answer, hell no one can. To claim that a primordial puddle will spring to life given enough time is the pinnacle of blind denial,... as you say, oh those experiments won't work , you need a million years!

You need help to break the grip of this cults belief, counseling perhaps?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104038 Oct 31, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand you can't answer, hell no one can. To claim that a primordial puddle will spring to life given enough time is the pinnacle of blind denial,... as you say, oh those experiments won't work , you need a million years!
You need help to break the grip of this cults belief, counseling perhaps?
Sure I can answer your questions.

Of course we all know that you are a moron so you won't be able to ask coherent questions, much less understand the answers given to you.

The poor idiot still believes his book of fairy tales and thinks that he can defend them by attacking science problems that are still being solved.

How pathetic.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104039 Oct 31, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
"It is one thing to explain the occurrence of heads on a single coin toss by appealing to chance, it is quite another to take the view that ,..the specific sequence of nucleotides in the DNA molecule of the first organism came about by a purely random process in the early history of the earth"
Bernd Olaf Kuppers
Poor fool. Does anyone who accept the theory of evolution and believes that abiogenesis is the most likely explanation believe in a random process?

No, of course not. That means that any idiot who implies that we do does not understand what the hell he is talking about.

Ladies and Gentlemen I present you that idiot, he goes by the name of "bohart."
" We can accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not to much,. In our theory of how we came to exist , we are allowed to postulate a certain ration of luck. This ration has as it's upper limit, the number of eligible planets in the universe,...We therefore have at our disposal ,odds of 1 in 100 billion ,billion as an upper limit to spend in our theory on the origin of life. This is the maximum amount of luck we are allowed to postulate in our theory . Suppose we want to suggest, for instance ,that life began when both DNA and it's protein based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed a 100 billion billion to one"
Richard Dawkins
And by not supplying a proper link bohart shows that he is lying once again.

It is amazing how little shame creatards have about breaking the Ninth Commandment. They insult Jesus by assuming that he is as big of an idiot as they are and that it will be okay with him that they can lie for him.
Notice ! no mechanisms , no working hypothesis, no experimental success .just random chance as the origin of life!
Fascinating! a scientific theory based on astronomical luck! The entire basis of this myth is that given enough time and chance virtually anything can happen!, even inanimate matter , completely random ,can create the information to self organize and spring to life.. the fools roulette wheel!
..and the Dud makes fun of magic! ha,ha,ha.
If you fools want to continue to defend your faith, have at it! but don't call it science.
Perhaps that is because, as I already pointed you, that you quote mined the whole thing at best and perhaps even openly lied.

So moron, do you have anything besides your various lies? Quote mining and straw man arguments are both a form of lying.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#104040 Oct 31, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Leave the irony meters alone, bub.
Amazing how when one escapes from reality that reason a logic fly off with it. You folks have bought unto the evo pyridine hook line and sinker. So you think you have the right to judge me and truth? you are wrong. Your mindless, self-making, unplanned accidental nothingness is exactly that, its a delusion, a lie, untrue and a deception. I apply the rules of reason and logic in technology and create real equipment that mankind uses everyday across the planet. What my friend do you or any of your group here really do?, except to mock, judge and put people down? Good at that for sure! That's a reality test my friend and the analogy is the same as applied to the biological world, including that little tiny proton powered motor that you can't describe nor understand yet you arrogantly mock in ignorance, but in truth when you call it evolved you are actually mocking Almighty God, and I am not so foolish.

http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/a-questio...
http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/10/evolution...

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
"Any 3 word combination" (Dec '12) 2 min andet1987 4,060
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 7 min andet1987 13,734
Word Association (Mar '10) 8 min andet1987 22,600
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 9 min andet1987 84,056
lets play follow the word! (Jul '08) 10 min Brandiiiiiiii 39,829
Let's play "follow the word" (Jun '08) 10 min andet1987 49,915
First Word That Comes To Mind ....... (Apr '10) 10 min Brandiiiiiiii 13,171
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 13 min andet1987 17,671
True False Game (Jun '11) 16 min andet1987 15,589
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 27 min Brandiiiiiiii 27,698
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 3 hr david04 6,111
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 6 hr Sublime1 223,437
More from around the web