Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 172079 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#106474 Nov 22, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what is the 'usable volume' of a pyramid?
Depends on what you're using it for. As a paperweight, all of it.

;-)

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#106475 Nov 22, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what is the 'usable volume' of a pyramid?

Not a very good apartment building , that's for sure.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#106476 Nov 22, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> The same with all world languages, English is not an exception. English originated in England as well as ownership, that has always been my stand ever, idiot.
English was brought to what would become Great Britain by Germainic settlers. English was FORMED in Great Brittian, but did not Originate there.

Just want to point out that you really show your true self with the childish name calling.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106477 Nov 22, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what is the 'usable volume' of a pyramid?
Useable space is the open space within a building. Since the pyramids were build before the discovery of arches they were mostly solid stone and had very little useable space within.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106478 Nov 22, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
English was brought to what would become Great Britain by Germainic settlers. English was FORMED in Great Brittian, but did not Originate there.
Just want to point out that you really show your true self with the childish name calling.
English was formed from a combination of Celtic, Anglo, Saxon, and Norman. Norman was the most recent language to merge with the others and is considered to have the most influence on modern English. Since English is considered a different language then those it was built on, none of those older imported languages can be considered "English". Therefore the correct statement would be that English originated in England and evolved out of several other languages brought to England by immigrating foreign tribes. It is another example of evolution and is still evolving today. And good example of this continuing evolution of the language is the word "spaghetti" which is an Italian word that has found it's way into the mouths of English speaking people.(pun intended)

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#106479 Nov 22, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
From the New York Times article on the subject:
Zahi Hawass, head of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Egypt, minced no words in assailing the concrete idea. "It's highly stupid," he said via a spokesman. "The pyramids are made from solid blocks of quarried limestone. To suggest otherwise is idiotic and insulting."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/afric...
It easy to believe in such fairy tales if your never been there and never actually looked at or touched the stone.
<quoted text>
Largest? No.
The largest pyramid by volume is the Great Pyramid of Cholula, in the Mexican state of Puebla. Constructed from the 3rd century BC to the 9th century AD, this pyramid is considered the largest monument ever constructed anywhere in the world, and is still being excavated. The third largest pyramid in the world, the Pyramid of the Sun, at Teotihuacan is also located in Mexico. There is an unusual pyramid with a circular plan at the site of Cuicuilco, now inside Mexico City and mostly covered with lava from an eruption of the Xitle Volcano in the 1st century BC. There are several circular stepped pyramids called Guachimontones in Teuchitlán, Jalisco as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid#Mesoamer...
Not even close to being the oldest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_olde...
You might consider knowing what you're talking about.
"Michel Barsoum, professor of materials engineering, shows in a peer-reviewed paper to be published Dec. 1 in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society how the Egyptian builders of the nearly 5,000-year-old pyramids were exceptional civil and architectural engineers as well as superb chemists and material scientists. His conclusions could lead to a seismic shift in the kind of concrete used in construction and provide developing nations a way to build structures utilizing inexpensive and easily accessible materials.

Barsoum presented his findings at a news conference Nov. 30 at Le Palais de la decouverte, Avenue Franklin D. Roosevelt, in Paris, France.

The longstanding belief is that the pyramids were constructed with limestone blocks that were cut to shape in nearby quarries using copper tools, transported to the pyramid sites, hauled up ramps and hoisted in place with the help of wedges and levers. Barsoum argues that although indeed the majority of the stones were carved and hoisted into place, crucial parts were not. The ancient builders cast the blocks of the outer and inner casings and, most likely, the upper parts of the pyramids using a limestone concrete, called a geopolymer.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/...

Your quote is from an archeologist not a chemist.

Age

LEHNER: Right. There has been radiocarbon dating, or carbon-14 dating done in Egypt obviously before we did our studies, and it's been done on some material from Giza. For example, the great boat that was found just south of the Great Pyramid, which we think belongs to Khufu, that was radiocarbon dated—coming out about 2,600 B.C.

Lehner is from Harvard

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/...

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#106480 Nov 22, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>Useable space is the open space within a building. Since the pyramids were build before the discovery of arches they were mostly solid stone and had very little useable space within.
That's pretty good ..cept the Egyptians built buildings besides the pyramids, they also had devised the arch. Arches weren't discovered, they were invented.
In fact the Great Pyramid had a A corbel arch, arched chamber built within it.

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/building/...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#106481 Nov 22, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
"Michel Barsoum, professor of materials engineering...
I'm aware of his work and that of Davidovits before him.
SBT wrote:
Your quote is from an archeologist not a chemist.
Yes. But I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss Dr. Hawass. He is not just any, old archeologist from your local community college. He is considered by many to be one of the world's foremost authorities on Egyptology.

How about a petrographer? Dipayan Jana.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/1b249a805d9a5573e0ccd...

Here's the power point presentation he did several years ago on the subject:
http://nebula.wsimg.com/c6f3a84d66ecc81473ce4...

As I said before, it's easy enough to believe things you're told that you haven't experienced first hand. Especially if you want to believe.
SBT wrote:
Age
LEHNER: Right. There has been radiocarbon dating, or carbon-14 dating done in Egypt obviously before we did our studies, and it's been done on some material from Giza. For example, the great boat that was found just south of the Great Pyramid, which we think belongs to Khufu, that was radiocarbon dated—coming out about 2,600 B.C.
Lehner is from Harvard
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/...
Interesting read. But I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#106482 Nov 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has claimed that bronze age man was primitive. And that knowledge has not been lost no matter what a bunch of pyramid nuts claim. Nor are those blocks that difficult to move.
Again, you don't understand either what the ancient Egyptians were like or what the theory of evolution says.
So those pyramid blocks were easaly moved? So what kind of tools did the those backward ancients use to build Puma Punku? According to your age-technology progression theory they must have used sticks.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_PumaPunku....

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#106483 Nov 22, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
So those pyramid blocks were easaly moved? So what kind of tools did the those backward ancients use to build Puma Punku? According to your age-technology progression theory they must have used sticks.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_PumaPunku....

Who ever said any of that stuff was easy?

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#106484 Nov 22, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm aware of his work and that of Davidovits before him.
<quoted text>
Yes. But I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss Dr. Hawass. He is not just any, old archeologist from your local community college. He is considered by many to be one of the world's foremost authorities on Egyptology.
How about a petrographer? Dipayan Jana.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/1b249a805d9a5573e0ccd...
Here's the power point presentation he did several years ago on the subject:
http://nebula.wsimg.com/c6f3a84d66ecc81473ce4...
As I said before, it's easy enough to believe things you're told that you haven't experienced first hand. Especially if you want to believe.
<quoted text>
Interesting read. But I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make.
My point is assumed evolutionary progression. We all got fed this line essentially saying if its ancient it must be "primitive", you know, go back and we are tooless cannibals, living in caves wearing leopard print. Archeology can be interpreted either way but there are some real obstructions of fact like Puma Punku.

These places are unexplainable, so to fit they throw in a stone-age date to save face. Its back to big picture thinking with all the evidence in place to consider a worldview. They have some crazy places in S. America. One port has head images of every ethnic group on earth. The bible mentions Salomon's trading fleet taking 3 years to roundtrip. Another city has steps and doorways suggesting the population was 7ft plus. Many have quarries huge distances away from the building sites, impossible to explain using today's technology.

These structures and means go into the "mystery" box because they confound the dogma, and really point to "If its ancient it's Smarter" as a very plausible concept.

Look at the cuts in those Puma Punka stones, the perfect 6mm fracture cut and clean drill holes, the jig saw fits and all. Must have been made by an advanced race. Could this have been a pre-flood city? I don't know, but it doesn't confound biblical history. Salomon mentioned technology forgotten before him.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_PumaPunku....

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106485 Nov 22, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh look! Maz is presenting another linky which doesn't support him as usual then followed it up with another batch of lies and baseless claims. How can we stand against such intellectual inadequacy?!?
1 - You have no evidence of a young Earth, which is the only thing that would work.
I am not a YEC. So DER!

As far as YECism goes....You don't have any evidence of abiogenesis but that has never stopped the evolutionary story..
2 - Now you're contradicting SBT. Oh, and your own claim on point one. That's because you're too stupid to have the slightest clue about the consequences of your statements.
You'r a real simpleton. And NO, independent genesis is supported by toal genome functionality. There is loads of evidence for it and I have posted it. Would like to see it again, oh smart one.
3 - Until you can demonstrate every single function scientifically this particular (contradictory) claim by you will remain unevidenced. As it happens today however evolution is 96% better at predicting protein function for example than IDCreationism is. Which is stuck on zero. Like the evidence of its claims.
You don't gert to set my benchmarks for me. You lot have had to change the meaning of vestigial to mean 'different' function, instead of 'NO' function. eg apendix. You show one so called vestigial anything and I;ll show you what trash heads you all are.
4 - Fossil record indicates clear evolutionary progression which you have dealt only with pure denial, never addressing the evidence. Plus you still haven't been able to provide a rational explanation as to why the Creator is as limited as you say it is. Of course you have been unable to demonstrate it even EXISTS yet, so uh...(shrug)
No the fossils record does not show progression at all. eg Basilosaurus that predates its ancestors.

Try again, because your post is based on your opinion. Subby has already flopped out totally. There has been no evidence presented on epistasis that does nto run counter clockwise to evolutionary claims, yet support a creationist paradigm.

Subby flopped on whales, with Indohyus ambulocetus natans that coexisted and basilosaurus that predates them both. That does not demonstrate a line of descent at all and neither does any ofyour fossil evidence. It demonstrates puctuated equilibrium when something like a deer suddenly pops up in the record as something like a sea lion.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106486 Nov 22, 2013
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.

Evo defaulting to the bluster of the majority is a fools talent. Evo empirical research based on algorithmic magic is only good for supporting the prevailing bias.

LOOK...

Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/...

How about you present research that demonstrates negative epistasis will NOT prevent an organism from going into extinction over billions of years.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106487 Nov 22, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Who ever said any of that stuff was easy?
eg...Placental sharks may be harder to talk about than pyramids.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106488 Nov 22, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> That's pretty good ..cept the Egyptians built buildings besides the pyramids, they also had devised the arch. Arches weren't discovered, they were invented.
In fact the Great Pyramid had a A corbel arch, arched chamber built within it.
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/building/...
A corbel arch is an arch-like construction method but is not considered a true arch. Egyptian dwelling and public buildings of the time consisted of brick walls with wooden timbers laid across the to create a roof. They were basically sophisticated lean to's with two supporting walls. Discussing the semantics of architectural terms is interesting but really has little to do with evolution of the human species.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#106489 Nov 22, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is assumed evolutionary progression. We all got fed this line essentially saying if its ancient it must be "primitive", you know, go back and we are tooless cannibals, living in caves wearing leopard print.
Where are getting this stuff from???
SBT wrote:
Archeology can be interpreted either way...
By you, at least.
SBT wrote:
...but there are some real obstructions of fact like Puma Punku.
These places are unexplainable, so to fit they throw in a stone-age date to save face. Its back to big picture thinking with all the evidence in place to consider a worldview. They have some crazy places in S. America. One port has head images of every ethnic group on earth. The bible mentions Salomon's trading fleet taking 3 years to roundtrip. Another city has steps and doorways suggesting the population was 7ft plus. Many have quarries huge distances away from the building sites, impossible to explain using today's technology.
These structures and means go into the "mystery" box because they confound the dogma, and really point to "If its ancient it's Smarter" as a very plausible concept.
There are without doubt, things done by earlier civilizations that are real head-scratchers. But to claim something is 'impossible to explain using today's technology' is simply incorrect. Again, people often believe what they want to believe.

Do you think this guy floated these stones through the air?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Castle
SBT wrote:
Look at the cuts in those Puma Punka stones, the perfect 6mm fracture cut and clean drill holes, the jig saw fits and all. Must have been made by an advanced race. Could this have been a pre-flood city? I don't know, but it doesn't confound biblical history. Salomon mentioned technology forgotten before him.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_PumaPunku....
A pre-flood city? Uh-huh.

Have a nice day.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#106490 Nov 22, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>English was formed from a combination of Celtic, Anglo, Saxon, and Norman. Norman was the most recent language to merge with the others and is considered to have the most influence on modern English. Since English is considered a different language then those it was built on, none of those older imported languages can be considered "English". Therefore the correct statement would be that English originated in England and evolved out of several other languages brought to England by immigrating foreign tribes. It is another example of evolution and is still evolving today. And good example of this continuing evolution of the language is the word "spaghetti" which is an Italian word that has found it's way into the mouths of English speaking people.(pun intended)
Good post Mudd, and kudos on the pun, just can't agree with Originate. Without going through the well-documented formation of English, I agree that it was formed in England, where it evolved into the first forms of English, but it's roots; it's prehistory point to it's origin which was that brought over by Germanic tribes in the beginning of the fifth century, four hundred years before England was formed as unified state.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106491 Nov 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a YEC. So DER!
As far as YECism goes....You don't have any evidence of abiogenesis but that has never stopped the evolutionary story..
<quoted text>
You'r a real simpleton. And NO, independent genesis is supported by toal genome functionality. There is loads of evidence for it and I have posted it. Would like to see it again, oh smart one.
<quoted text>
You don't gert to set my benchmarks for me. You lot have had to change the meaning of vestigial to mean 'different' function, instead of 'NO' function. eg apendix. You show one so called vestigial anything and I;ll show you what trash heads you all are.
<quoted text>
No the fossils record does not show progression at all. eg Basilosaurus that predates its ancestors.
Try again, because your post is based on your opinion. Subby has already flopped out totally. There has been no evidence presented on epistasis that does nto run counter clockwise to evolutionary claims, yet support a creationist paradigm.
Subby flopped on whales, with Indohyus ambulocetus natans that coexisted and basilosaurus that predates them both. That does not demonstrate a line of descent at all and neither does any ofyour fossil evidence. It demonstrates puctuated equilibrium when something like a deer suddenly pops up in the record as something like a sea lion.
If God waved his hand and created Adam and Eve and we are all descended from them, how could so many different races of man now exist without evolution. If there was no evolution we would all look the same. Or did God have a different creation for each race?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#106492 Nov 22, 2013
SBT wrote:
These structures and means go into the "mystery" box because they confound the dogma, and really point to "If its ancient it's Smarter" as a very plausible concept.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4149

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#106493 Nov 22, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>A corbel arch is an arch-like construction method but is not considered a true arch. Egyptian dwelling and public buildings of the time consisted of brick walls with wooden timbers laid across the to create a roof. They were basically sophisticated lean to's with two supporting walls. Discussing the semantics of architectural terms is interesting but really has little to do with evolution of the human species.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

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) 7 min wichita-rick 167,504
" Tell me a secret"...... (Oct '14) 13 min Crazy Jae 544
Let's Play Another Three Words,... 16 min Crazy Jae 58
I've Never Seen Such a Bunch of Spastics!!! 23 min greymouser 2
gimme a dolla 31 min homie 17
John Denver jokes 38 min greymouser 2
True False Game (Jun '11) 1 hr greymouser 9,907
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 2 hr KNIGHT DeVINE 12,830
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr Lemmy Guess 42,143
hoosier hillbilly (Sep '12) 4 hr Crystal_Clear722 1,968
Answer a question with a question 4 hr Old Sam 537
More from around the web