Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209908 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.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#106402 Nov 20, 2013
Patriot wrote:
Ten whole tons, wow.
Some of the stone blocks weigh 100 Tons, and there are a few that weigh 200 Tons. That is 200,000 Pounds and 400,000 Pounds respectively.
I have been involved in Heavy Rigging and Heavy Lifting of things weighing in excess of 100,000 Pounds and once a 1 Million Pound Lift.
A Full Size Car weighs less than 2 Tons. Try squashing 50 Cadillacs, engines, transmissions and all into one block and lifting it.
You are talking Monster Modern Equipment to lift that much weight. Watching the load go up is like watching grass grow.
At 50 Tons Steel Cable Slings cut into the edges of a steel object being lifted. Steel Cables as much as one and a half inches to 2 inches thick stretch and saw into the object, so we use "Softeners" made of Oak Wood around the edges.
The 100 Ton Stone Blocks in the Pyramids are perfect all around the edges, displaying NO signs of damage from lifting or prying. Our Modern Cranes and cables would do serious damage to the Stone Blocks. Even using "Softeners," the odds are near 100% there would be damage to the Stone Blocks
Supernatural is two words put together, Super and Natural. Of Course there is, and always has been Magic, as you call it.
I commend you for choosing the Argument From Ignorance to support your case. You are perfectly suited for that fallacy.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#106403 Nov 20, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>
Ten whole tons, wow.
Some of the stone blocks weigh 100 Tons, and there are a few that weigh 200 Tons. That is 200,000 Pounds and 400,000 Pounds respectively.
I have been involved in Heavy Rigging and Heavy Lifting of things weighing in excess of 100,000 Pounds and once a 1 Million Pound Lift.
A Full Size Car weighs less than 2 Tons. Try squashing 50 Cadillacs, engines, transmissions and all into one block and lifting it.
You are talking Monster Modern Equipment to lift that much weight. Watching the load go up is like watching grass grow.
At 50 Tons Steel Cable Slings cut into the edges of a steel object being lifted. Steel Cables as much as one and a half inches to 2 inches thick stretch and saw into the object, so we use "Softeners" made of Oak Wood around the edges.
The 100 Ton Stone Blocks in the Pyramids are perfect all around the edges, displaying NO signs of damage from lifting or prying. Our Modern Cranes and cables would do serious damage to the Stone Blocks. Even using "Softeners," the odds are near 100% there would be damage to the Stone Blocks
Supernatural is two words put together, Super and Natural. Of Course there is, and always has been Magic, as you call it.
Heavy lifting? Hmmm. What about jars? Are you good at opening jars?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106404 Nov 20, 2013
And now I can see that Patriot tends to exaggerate just a tad. From the Wiki article on the Pyramid of Cheops:

"The Great Pyramid consists of an estimated 2.3 million limestone blocks with most believed to have been transported from nearby quarries. The Tura limestone used for the casing was quarried across the river. The largest granite stones in the pyramid, found in the "King's" chamber, weigh 25 to 80 tonnes and were transported from Aswan, more than 800 km (497 mi) away"

He had the greatest mass as 100 to 200 tons. Just a tad more than the 80 tons listed in the Wiki article. Well they were working with metric tons which are about 10% heavier than long tons still, 88 tons for the absolute heaviest is far below his 200 ton estimate and significantly below his 100 ton estimate.

Wally could move a ten ton block by himself so using his methods it would take only ten people to move even the heaviest of stones at Cheops.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#106405 Nov 20, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And now I can see that Patriot tends to exaggerate just a tad. From the Wiki article on the Pyramid of Cheops:
"The Great Pyramid consists of an estimated 2.3 million limestone blocks with most believed to have been transported from nearby quarries. The Tura limestone used for the casing was quarried across the river. The largest granite stones in the pyramid, found in the "King's" chamber, weigh 25 to 80 tonnes and were transported from Aswan, more than 800 km (497 mi) away"
He had the greatest mass as 100 to 200 tons. Just a tad more than the 80 tons listed in the Wiki article. Well they were working with metric tons which are about 10% heavier than long tons still, 88 tons for the absolute heaviest is far below his 200 ton estimate and significantly below his 100 ton estimate.
Wally could move a ten ton block by himself so using his methods it would take only ten people to move even the heaviest of stones at Cheops.
A fundamentalist ton is not like an actual ton. It is variable in proportion to the amount of BS they are spreading. The same goes for distance. In this case the distance the granite stones were carried is 800 actual kilometers. That is nearly 365,000 fundamentalist kilometers in this instance.

“Get Extreme or Go Home. ”

Since: Nov 13

United States

#106406 Nov 20, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. You are guilty of the psychological "sin" of projecting.
That is how religion works, not science. Anything that a scientists claims has to be demonstrably true. Not just for him but for others as well. The scientific method is a very open one. The reasons to believe a theory or hypothesis are always laid bare. Not only that, if it is a new idea it will be tested by countless scientists to see if it is true or not. If the new idea is correct they should get the same results. If they don't get the same results and they did not make an error then there is an error in the new idea.
Trying to call evolution only a belief is putting it on par to religious ideas which are only a belief, at best.
Wrong? How so?

Define belief. You will see it is simply acceptance of truth of something, accepting something to be the truth.

Evolution happened and still does happens. And it is a belief. Hypotheses, Theories, Tests, Studies along with Evidence only strengthen that belief.

Evolution is not just a belief. It is a belief supported and shown by Hypotheses, Theories, Tests, Studies along with Evidence only strengthen that belief.

Those scientific practice's are what set our beliefs apart from the God believers. We have tests that back up the theories and evidence that we can provide from all science practices. Praying and reading the bible are not practice's that produce evidence.

The one saying evolution is "only" a belief is you.

Do you believe in science that in search of the truth?
Do you believe in Hypotheses that are oriented for the truth?
Do you believe in theories that try to explain the truth?
Do you believe in evidence that shows the truth?

To believe in each of the above is believing and each one is a belief.

Like it or not chub evolution is based off of beliefs. Which again is "acceptance of truth of something, accepting something to be the truth."

Sorry if that rubs you wrong but as a fellow science lover and a evolution believer, that's what it is.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#106407 Nov 20, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
A fundamentalist ton is not like an actual ton. It is variable in proportion to the amount of BS they are spreading. The same goes for distance. In this case the distance the granite stones were carried is 800 actual kilometers. That is nearly 365,000 fundamentalist kilometers in this instance.
Yeah. I heard the story of 600,000 people wandering the desert for 40 yrs was really about a couple of drunks that got lost over a 3-day weekend.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#106408 Nov 20, 2013
Extreme Ways wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong? How so?
Define belief. You will see it is simply acceptance of truth of something, accepting something to be the truth.
Evolution happened and still does happens. And it is a belief. Hypotheses, Theories, Tests, Studies along with Evidence only strengthen that belief.
Evolution is not just a belief. It is a belief supported and shown by Hypotheses, Theories, Tests, Studies along with Evidence only strengthen that belief.
Those scientific practice's are what set our beliefs apart from the God believers. We have tests that back up the theories and evidence that we can provide from all science practices. Praying and reading the bible are not practice's that produce evidence.
The one saying evolution is "only" a belief is you.
Do you believe in science that in search of the truth?
Do you believe in Hypotheses that are oriented for the truth?
Do you believe in theories that try to explain the truth?
Do you believe in evidence that shows the truth?
To believe in each of the above is believing and each one is a belief.
Like it or not chub evolution is based off of beliefs. Which again is "acceptance of truth of something, accepting something to be the truth."
Sorry if that rubs you wrong but as a fellow science lover and a evolution believer, that's what it is.
I don't think you will find many here that accept your views that evolution is based on belief. If you believe in evolution and it is refuted, what do you do?

Belief does not require evidence. Belief doesn't require understanding and appears to be stronger without it. Belief remains the same despite evidence. Belief is what you use to consider ID a viable alternative to science since there are no facts to support it.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#106409 Nov 20, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. I heard the story of 600,000 people wandering the desert for 40 yrs was really about a couple of drunks that got lost over a 3-day weekend.
Hey what happens in the wilderness, stays in the wilderness.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#106410 Nov 20, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Hey what happens in the wilderness, stays in the wilderness.
Whew! Glad I didn't mention any names.

“Get Extreme or Go Home. ”

Since: Nov 13

United States

#106411 Nov 20, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think you will find many here that accept your views that evolution is based on belief. If you believe in evolution and it is refuted, what do you do?
Belief does not require evidence. Belief doesn't require understanding and appears to be stronger without it. Belief remains the same despite evidence. Belief is what you use to consider ID a viable alternative to science since there are no facts to support it.
Do you believe in science that is in search of the truth?
Do you believe in Hypotheses that are oriented for the truth?
Do you believe in theories that try to explain the truth?
Do you believe in evidence that shows the truth?

If so then you have a belief. Evolution will never be proven wrong. There nay be some discrepancy which is why you would fall back on testing of the theory.

You are confusing fantasy with belief. Belief has to have evidence to warrant that belief while fantasy is believing in the what you are told.

Would you take the word of the man running the shell game that the ball was not under the shell you picked or would you want to see if the ball was there or not? That is the difference in believing the evidence you can see or believing what you are told.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106412 Nov 20, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think you will find many here that accept your views that evolution is based on belief. If you believe in evolution and it is refuted, what do you do?
Belief does not require evidence. Belief doesn't require understanding and appears to be stronger without it. Belief remains the same despite evidence. Belief is what you use to consider ID a viable alternative to science since there are no facts to support it.
Ditto!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106413 Nov 21, 2013
Extreme Ways wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe in science that is in search of the truth?
Do you believe in Hypotheses that are oriented for the truth?
Do you believe in theories that try to explain the truth?
Do you believe in evidence that shows the truth?
If so then you have a belief. Evolution will never be proven wrong. There nay be some discrepancy which is why you would fall back on testing of the theory.
You are confusing fantasy with belief. Belief has to have evidence to warrant that belief while fantasy is believing in the what you are told.
Would you take the word of the man running the shell game that the ball was not under the shell you picked or would you want to see if the ball was there or not? That is the difference in believing the evidence you can see or believing what you are told.
Properly no scientist "believes" anything.

A scientist will accept a theory as being provisionally true. At least that is the ideal. That way he is not too heavily invested in an idea and if it is shown to be wrong he will have no problem changing his mind.

Now many scientists are only human and do not follow this idea. Though there are a few rare cases. I know of one simple idea that I was vehemently against on the internet and yet when the people on the other side made a working model with a simple test that showed they were right I instantly realized that I was wrong and congratulated them. Now I may not be that way on all subjects, but I am proud that even though I was wrong I followed the scientific idea.

Now you can claim that science has earned the belief that many people put in it and that would be true. Science has a history of producing positive results. Religion not so much. Still ideally belief is something that is not part of science.

“Get Extreme or Go Home. ”

Since: Nov 13

United States

#106414 Nov 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Properly no scientist "believes" anything.
A scientist will accept a theory as being provisionally true. At least that is the ideal. That way he is not too heavily invested in an idea and if it is shown to be wrong he will have no problem changing his mind.
Now many scientists are only human and do not follow this idea. Though there are a few rare cases. I know of one simple idea that I was vehemently against on the internet and yet when the people on the other side made a working model with a simple test that showed they were right I instantly realized that I was wrong and congratulated them. Now I may not be that way on all subjects, but I am proud that even though I was wrong I followed the scientific idea.
Now you can claim that science has earned the belief that many people put in it and that would be true. Science has a history of producing positive results. Religion not so much. Still ideally belief is something that is not part of science.
What is the definition of belief? That is the question that will answer doubt.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106415 Nov 21, 2013
Extreme Ways wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the definition of belief? That is the question that will answer doubt.
if you want to play the semantics game there are multiple answers.

Perhaps you have your own strange definition of belief. For me it is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to late at night to argue philosophy. At best at this time I can merely repeat that a scientist does not "believe" anything. He will accept certain concepts as being true.

The difference is hopefully enough to keep scientists honest.

“Get Extreme or Go Home. ”

Since: Nov 13

United States

#106416 Nov 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
if you want to play the semantics game there are multiple answers.
Perhaps you have your own strange definition of belief. For me it is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to late at night to argue philosophy. At best at this time I can merely repeat that a scientist does not "believe" anything. He will accept certain concepts as being true.
The difference is hopefully enough to keep scientists honest.
Belief is what it is and only the confused will change what it means because they dont agree with the what the definition says or seems.

“Get Extreme or Go Home. ”

Since: Nov 13

United States

#106417 Nov 21, 2013
My last thought before I go start my day:

Evolution happened and now we have man. Some say it was random some say it was a plan. Life started and life has excelled. How it happens is in the beliefs that are held. Those beliefs differ throughout the world with each side speaking up hoping to be herd. Some believe in creation and some believe in evolution. They always argue and there is not solution. Some believe in God and others believe in selection. One has guidance and one has no direction. They both are beliefs and both argue all they can, how life actually started seems a mystery to man.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#106419 Nov 21, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Irony looks more like an idiot forgetting TOE is supported bty 150 years of falsifications. eg human knuckle walking anceestry, junk DNA, single celled LUCA.
The other thing that is ironic is that all you evos can do is fluff your ugly feathers and toot your horn.
So let's recap this 'science' you evos like to suggest you use. Certain predictions can be made from a creationist and evolutionary paradigm.
1. Adaptation is limited and organisms will remain in their familial groups. All recent genomic research runs counter clockwise to evolutionary expectations and indeed there is plenty of biased data that supports the creo paradigm that the genome is restricted and limited in its ability to adapt from microbe to dinosaur.
2. The genome will be found to be fully functional. A creator has no need to put junk in the genome as evos predicted. So far we are up to a definite 80% and well credentialled researchers eg Gingeras from ENCODE, fully expect that to rise to 100%.
3. All organs will be found to have some function. A creator as no need to make functionless organs. This has been validated with the evolutionary myth of 'NO function' being falsified.
4. Organisms will be found to appear suddenly in the fossil record and in line with a documented account of the appearance of life. This continues to be valdiated. eg Tetrapods, Cambrian explosion, animal life began in the sea.
Hence evolutionists would rather die than admit the evidence for creationism keeps mounting while evos continue to look silly with their flavours of the month and falsifications of previous claims.
ENCODE found that up to 80% of the genome does something but the vast majority of that seems to be nothing but producing chunks of RNA that are broken down again immediately. Rather useless. As far us useful function goes, they have only pinpointed about 9% of the genome and optimistic estimates put that up to a potential 25%.

In any case junk was never a core prediction of evolution. Yes I am sure you will tear your hair out hearing that but its a fact. The issue is, that once junk was discovered, it could be fit into the evolutionary paradigm but is not so easy for intelligent design creationists to explain. That still does not make it a core or necessary preduction of evolution. Never did.

Oh and you still havent provided a shred of evidence that evolutionists ever claimed hominids knuckle walked, certainly not past early Australopiths. Its just more of your rabid trash talk which makes anything else you say all the easier to dismiss.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#106420 Nov 21, 2013
MAZHERE

The truth about ENCODE and FUNCTIONALITY

by one of the researchers... 

"It was already known, for example, that vast portions of the genome are transcribed into RNA.  A small amount of that RNA encodes protein, and some serves a regulatory role, but the rest of it is chock-full of seemingly nonsensical repeats, remnants of past viruses and other weird little bits that shouldn’t serve a purpose."

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/09/fighting...

And my memory was off in the previous post. 8% with a prediction of up to 20% useful function.

Read the whole article.

Not that i expect this to arouse any dormant honesty you might have once had. Your repeated knuckle walking comments already confirm you as a deliberate liar who will claim anything to discredit the science you hate.

“Proud Member”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#106421 Nov 21, 2013
Extreme Ways wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the definition of belief? That is the question that will answer doubt.
Science is subject to peer review where thousands of people can disqualify a theory, using the proper methodology.
So any belief in theory is also backed by the rigorous system of falsification. Not so much are the belief in this , as it is a bit of confidence the truth has been found. Though nothing is perfect and most scientists stay very skeptical of all but the most mundanely accepted theories as being axioms.

I can only guess you must have your doubts in this process , so you can accept a false determination that is ill advised scientifically. I also guess you must spread this doubt, or your religious beliefs will dissipate into the thin air it came from.

“Proud Member”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#106422 Nov 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
MAZHERE
The truth about ENCODE and FUNCTIONALITY
by one of the researchers... 
"It was already known, for example, that vast portions of the genome are transcribed into RNA.  A small amount of that RNA encodes protein, and some serves a regulatory role, but the rest of it is chock-full of seemingly nonsensical repeats, remnants of past viruses and other weird little bits that shouldn’t serve a purpose."
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/09/fighting...
And my memory was off in the previous post. 8% with a prediction of up to 20% useful function.
Read the whole article.
Not that i expect this to arouse any dormant honesty you might have once had. Your repeated knuckle walking comments already confirm you as a deliberate liar who will claim anything to discredit the science you hate.
Either that of Maz is a ridiculous poe trying to make creationists look extremely stupid.

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
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 1 min GLEN CARTER 33,683
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 min TheJerseyDevil 201,050
2words into 2new words (May '12) 6 min Sharlene45 5,134
Two words only please! (Aug '08) 6 min GLEN CARTER 39,857
Only Three Word (Nov '09) 9 min GLEN CARTER 13,541
Word Association (Jun '10) 10 min wichita-rick 31,041
Philly grey poster hangout 12 min Knock off purse s... 89
If Trump Wins 2 hr andet1987 43
Who won the Presidential debate 2016 ? 3 hr andet1987 90
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 3 hr Princess Hey 147,253
More from around the web