Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222739 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 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#107103 Nov 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Because abiogenesis is not a doctrine to believe in. Pity you cannot get your head around this. Its a hypothesis, or really a series of hypotheses, to test. Can you see the difference?
No faith, no belief. Just science and hard work.
Noted - Creationists just think scientists believe something different than they do. What they don't get is that we don't believe in "believing in", the way they do. About anything.
Skepticism - the refusal to accept any claim not backed by evidence.
Skepticism - the ability to live with doubt where there is no defining evidence for or against a claim. That's it.
Wakey wakey bohart. We are not even working from the same playbook as you.
What's terrible is you and many scientists DO believe in something with no proof whatsoever, and you and your ilk are so blinded by your ideology you can't even realize it.

" Intensified effort revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba was a complex, self operating chemical factory . The notion that he was a simple blob , the discovery of which chemical composition would enable us instantly to set the life process in operation , turned out to be , at best , a monstrous caricature of the truth. With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle , science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of it's own:

The Immense Journey ,....by Loren Eiseley

"Unstable organic compounds and chlorophyll corpuscles do not persist or come into existence in nature on their own account at the present day, and consequently it is necessary to postulate that conditions were once such that this did happen although and in spite of the fact that our knowledge of nature does not give us any warrant for making such a supposition...It is simple dogmatism, asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen"

British biologist Woodger

Read that last line by Woodger again,....that's sums you and your ilk up quite nicely.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#107104 Nov 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It appeared to be quite appropriate, as the 'answer' was just as good.
<quoted text>
If one is satisfied that someone did something, somehow, somewhere at sometime then I suppose so.
<quoted text>
There doesn't have to be a conflict, as with religious beliefs you are free to believe in whatever you wish. There are even some scientists who accept evolution, and their religious beliefs are that God was resonsible for life and the universe. Science can't validate the religious side of things of course but if that's not a worry for you then that's okay.
On the other hand there are those whose religious beliefs are more important than reality itself. Science shows us one thing but they say it's like another because their god did it differently. Bohart for example rejects both evolution and abiogenesis because he places limits on an entity which creates universes as a hobby for fun. If such a being exists there is no reason it could not have used both chemical abiogenesis and evolution to get us where we are today.
But nay he say, life MUST have come about via magical poofing out of pile of dirt, spare rib and a talking snake - I mean, lizard. All because nothing must contradict his old religious book written by ancient goat-herders who thought the Earth was flat. If he wants to believe The Flinstones is a science documentary, that's fine. But as long as he doesn't teach it in public schools, as not only is it stupid, but also illegal. Whereas at least with evolution, contrary to his anti-reality claims, it can be scientifically demonstrated.
Oh Lord! you still haven't grasped the definition of abiogenesis have you? It means how life got here through purely natural means, no God allowed, and the evidence doesn't support it.

Your idea of evolution is merely adaptation without limits, and again the evidence shows there are limits. I know this will crash upon the rocks of your evolutionary dogmatism.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#107105 Nov 27, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
What's terrible is you and many scientists DO believe in something with no proof whatsoever, and you and your ilk are so blinded by your ideology you can't even realize it.
" Intensified effort revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba was a complex, self operating chemical factory . The notion that he was a simple blob , the discovery of which chemical composition would enable us instantly to set the life process in operation , turned out to be , at best , a monstrous caricature of the truth. With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle , science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of it's own:
The Immense Journey ,....by Loren Eiseley
"Unstable organic compounds and chlorophyll corpuscles do not persist or come into existence in nature on their own account at the present day, and consequently it is necessary to postulate that conditions were once such that this did happen although and in spite of the fact that our knowledge of nature does not give us any warrant for making such a supposition...It is simple dogmatism, asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen"
British biologist Woodger
Read that last line by Woodger again,....that's sums you and your ilk up quite nicely.
"Unstable organic compounds and chlorophyll corpuscles do not persist or come into existence in nature on their own account at the present day, and consequently it is necessary to postulate that conditions were once such that this did happen although and in spite of the fact that our knowledge of nature does not give us any warrant for making such a supposition...It is simple dogmatism, asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen"

This must be an old quote, because we have found that
"Unstable organic compounds"
Indeed do come from simple natural processes.

And

"It is simple dogmatism, asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen"

Only applies to those who for 2,000 years the only answer is
"god did it".
But nice try you condescending moron of religious dogmatism.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107106 Nov 28, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
What's terrible is you and many scientists DO believe in something with no proof whatsoever, and you and your ilk are so blinded by your ideology you can't even realize it.
" Intensified effort revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba was a complex, self operating chemical factory . The notion that he was a simple blob , the discovery of which chemical composition would enable us instantly to set the life process in operation , turned out to be , at best , a monstrous caricature of the truth. With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle , science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of it's own:
The Immense Journey ,....by Loren Eiseley
"Unstable organic compounds and chlorophyll corpuscles do not persist or come into existence in nature on their own account at the present day, and consequently it is necessary to postulate that conditions were once such that this did happen although and in spite of the fact that our knowledge of nature does not give us any warrant for making such a supposition...It is simple dogmatism, asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen"
British biologist Woodger
Read that last line by Woodger again,....that's sums you and your ilk up quite nicely.
I dont "believe in" anything.
I accept evolution because the evidence supports it. I think natural abiogenesis quite likely but not yet established although many of its components are including the natural formation of many of the organic chemicals now associated with life.
And if you think the only viable alternative to the theory of evolution is some logically inconsistent 3000 year old goat herder fable that not only has no supporting evidence but conflicts with the evidence we have then you are nuts.

“Get Extreme or Go Home. ”

Since: Nov 13

United States

#107107 Nov 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the neighborhood has several breakins lately by young people.
From the Wiki article on the case:
"Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin's death had included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting.[52] Twin Lakes residents said there were dozens of reports of attempted break-ins, which had created an atmosphere of fear in their neighborhood."
And Zimmerman's testimony matched the timeline of event.
Liars are usually caught out by changing stories or by stories not matching the facts. Zimmerman made a statement that changed very little on the night of the event. It matched the events that could be independently timed. If he lied, it was one heck of a lie that did not have to change very much at all.
Here are a couple of facts supported by even witnesses against Zimmerman. Zimmerman had a short contact with Trayvon and he ran away. There was enough time after that encounter for Trayvon to go home.
It is fairly obvious that chunky monkey Zimmerman could not have chased down slimmer, younger, taller, Martin. You could hear Zimmerman's voice change on the tape when he was advised not to follow. It is fairly obvious that Martin got away. For Martin to run across Zimmerman again he had to return to him. Check out the map.
You have to ask yourself, how did Martin run into Zimmerman again? He did not have to run away, but once he did he could not legally re-engage. Martin was a fighter. He had gotten in trouble for it before. The wounds on Zimmerman and Martin supported Zimmerman's story. The only injury, aside from the fatal gunshot wound on Martin were injuries to his hands. Zimmerman had not hand injuries.
I have done martial arts for years. In the good old days there were no fist protectors. If you hit someone in the face, by accident since it was against the rules, your hands would usually show some sort of damage. In fact I saw one tournament where a fighter had both fists cut to the bone by his opponents teeth. The teeth were fine, the fists, not so much. He had to go to the hospital to have them cleaned and sewn up.
1. Was Zimmerman a cop? NO
2. Was Zimmerman protecting his own property? NO
3. Was Zimmerman told by 911 not to follow? YES
4. Did Zimmerman listen to 911? NO
5. Was Zimmerman advised by 911 not to confront the person? YES
6. Did Trevon fight back? YES
7. Was Zimmerman in a fight he was told not to do? YES
8. Was Zimmerman getting his butt kicked? YES
9. Was Trevon armed? NO
10. Was Trevon breaking the law? NO
11. Did Zimmerman go against what he was told by 911? YES
12. Did Zimmerman panic because he was getting his butt kicked? YES
13. Did Zimmerman put himself in danger? YES
14. Did Trevon have the right to defend himself? YES
15. Should Zimmerman listened to what 911 told him? YES
16. Did Zimmerman panic while getting his butt kicked? YES
17. Did Zimmerman start it when confronting Trevon? Yes
18. Did Zimmerman have a choice of waiting for police? YES
19. Did Zimmerman wait for police? NO
20. Did Zimmerman shoot and kill Trevon? YES
21. Could it have been avoided if Zimmerman listened to 911? Yes
22. If Zimmerman would have done what he was told by 911 would Trevor have been killed? NO

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107108 Nov 28, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
What's terrible is you and many scientists DO believe in something with no proof whatsoever, and you and your ilk are so blinded by your ideology you can't even realize it.
" Intensified effort revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba was a complex, self operating chemical factory . The notion that he was a simple blob , the discovery of which chemical composition would enable us instantly to set the life process in operation , turned out to be , at best , a monstrous caricature of the truth. With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle , science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of it's own:
The Immense Journey ,....by Loren Eiseley
"Unstable organic compounds and chlorophyll corpuscles do not persist or come into existence in nature on their own account at the present day, and consequently it is necessary to postulate that conditions were once such that this did happen although and in spite of the fact that our knowledge of nature does not give us any warrant for making such a supposition...It is simple dogmatism, asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen"
British biologist Woodger
Read that last line by Woodger again,....that's sums you and your ilk up quite nicely.
Eiseley's little amoeba story is already a caricature of the truth. Even Darwin knew that cells were not just little blobs and he did microscopic research on them identifying chloroplasts etc. Not to mention that an amoeba is an advanced and complex eukaryotic cell, nothing like a bacterium and they already knew bacteria were far more than blobs too.

So Eiseley created a dumb strawman from the start. Its always like that with creatards. Pick a logical fallacy or a type of truth distortion and its sure to be there in their claims. The truth simply does not support your case which is why 99.9% of biologists simply ignore your destructive stupidity.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#107110 Nov 28, 2013
Extreme Ways wrote:
(continued)
21. Could it have been avoided if Zimmerman listened to 911? Yes
Wrong again. Zimmerman heeded 911. He stopped following. Martin came back and attacked. Do you want to go over the evidence?
22. If Zimmerman would have done what he was told by 911 would Trevor have been killed? NO
Again, wrong. This death had nothing to do with the 911 operators suggestions. Zimmerman heeded them. He stopped following Martin. You can hear it yourself in the transcript. It seems you have only this one argument in your arsenal. You should at least get it right.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#107111 Nov 28, 2013
Hey Kong, do the inventors of things do have the right of ownership?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#107112 Nov 28, 2013
If English originated in England like an inventor, they do have that right of ownership. All languages one way or the other are connected to each other, not only English.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#107113 Nov 28, 2013
Therefore, ownership by origination is very correct.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#107114 Nov 28, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>But at what point did Theopods like maz first appear and are they not proof devolution?
Are we not men?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107115 Nov 28, 2013
bohart wrote:
Read that last line by Woodger again,....that's sums you and your ilk up quite nicely.
Their arguments from incredulity are irrelevant. Tell them to go get something peer-reviewed on the subject.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#107116 Nov 28, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
Hey Kong, do the inventors of things do have the right of ownership?
Charles Idemi wrote:
If English originated in England like an inventor, they do have that right of ownership. All languages one way or the other are connected to each other, not only English.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Therefore, ownership by origination is very correct.
The invention is owned by the copyright or patent holder, only if the invention has been copyrighted or patented can the inventor claim ownership.

The law is clear in most countries but there can be problems with countries that are not signed up to the intellectual property alliance

So no, ownership by origination is not correct.

You may feel that it is morally correct that an inventor should own his invention, unfortunately the real world has different ideas.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107117 Nov 28, 2013
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't heard the six of nine saying before, maybe it's the same sort of thing. Not sure.
Six of Nine was a Star Trek character.
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>Of course it is. That was my point - it may be incorrect or imcomplete in that it doesn't offer any proof, but it is an answer.
Yes, I was agreeing that it can be a valid answer, but it depends on the question. In the context of Evolution vs. Creation, it is not.
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>I totally disagree, sorry! Real numbers are all rational and irrerational numbers combined - that includes the negative numbers.
I have never heard of anyone saying dates below 33 AD as being unreal - are you being sarcastic :-)?
My bad, I meant negatives are not natural numbers, and I didn't say 'dates' lower than 33 AD, I said EVENTS. Many of the accounts in the OT and NT are unreal - and no, that is not sarcasm.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#107118 Nov 28, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Six of Nine was a Star Trek character.
<quoted text>
Yes, I was agreeing that it can be a valid answer, but it depends on the question. In the context of Evolution vs. Creation, it is not.
<quoted text> My bad, I meant negatives are not natural numbers, and I didn't say 'dates' lower than 33 AD, I said EVENTS. Many of the accounts in the OT and NT are unreal - and no, that is not sarcasm.
Seven of Nine
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107119 Nov 28, 2013
bohart wrote:
Oh Lord! you still haven't grasped the definition of abiogenesis have you? It means how life got here through purely natural means, no God allowed
You still haven't grasped the definition of gravity have you? It means how mass affects mass through purely natural means, no God allowed.

If your argument against abiogenesis is that it is "atheistic" then EVERY explanation for everything EVER is also atheistic, since Jewmagic is not an explanation.

Despite the fact that in reality NOTHING in science makes ANY theological claims.

But if YOU wanna place limits on your god then who am I to stop you.(shrug)
bohart wrote:
and the evidence doesn't support it.
Actually the ONLY thing the evidence supports so far is chemical abiogenesis. Technically speaking whether or not it occurred naturally or with the assistance of Jewish wizardry is not known.

You however claim that some guy who creates universes in his spare time is incapable of chemical abiogenesis. I would like to know how you were to ascertain this being's limitations via the scientific method. Especially since you have a grand total of zero evidence that such a thing even exists.
bohart wrote:
Your idea of evolution is merely adaptation without limits
Wrong.

See the trouble you get into when you make silly statements about science you've never bothered to learn about?

And since you've posted here for YEARS you have no excuse. ESPECIALLY as we TELL you exactly WHAT you got wrong and WHY. Yet you're so stupid you keep repeating this caricature of "random chance vs intelligence", every

single

time.

That is why you fail.
bohart wrote:
and again the evidence shows there are limits.
Of course there's limits. Evolution cannot create 100 foot arthropods. It currently cannot deal with fossils with feathers and three middle-ear bones. It can't do dog giving birth to a cat. There are LOTS of such limitations due to the effects of things like genetic drift, nested hierarchies and physics.

Even constant change over time, which IS a fact, will eventually be prevented when entropy finally catches up to it.

But since that probably won't happen for few million years (barring giant asteroid or world war 3) then there's nothing to stop evolution from occuring, same as it has for 3.5 billion years.
bohart wrote:
I know this will crash upon the rocks of your evolutionary dogmatism.
On the contrary, you know nothing. You are quite literally clueless, and are projecting your own failings onto those you oppose because you don't have the resources to counter us.

Not surprising really since all we do is describe reality.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#107120 Nov 28, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Six of Nine was a Star Trek character.
<quoted text>
Yes, I was agreeing that it can be a valid answer, but it depends on the question. In the context of Evolution vs. Creation, it is not.
<quoted text> My bad, I meant negatives are not natural numbers, and I didn't say 'dates' lower than 33 AD, I said EVENTS. Many of the accounts in the OT and NT are unreal - and no, that is not sarcasm.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Seven of Nine
I suppose there must have been a six too but I donít believe the character was ever characterised

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107121 Nov 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again. Zimmerman heeded 911. He stopped following. Martin came back and attacked. Do you want to go over the evidence?
<quoted text>
Again, wrong. This death had nothing to do with the 911 operators suggestions. Zimmerman heeded them. He stopped following Martin. You can hear it yourself in the transcript. It seems you have only this one argument in your arsenal. You should at least get it right.
As should you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107122 Nov 28, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
Hey Kong, do the inventors of things do have the right of ownership?
I can pretty much guarantee you that whoever originally invented English is dead. At which point he is released of all rights of ownership of anything and everything.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#107123 Nov 28, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>Fla has the best bass fishing in the Country. We got fresh and salt water bass. Through the center of the state and across the pan handle is some of the best fresh water bass in the world. But I'm as salt. The Indian River Lagoon is great all year with different catches at different times. But if you really want some fun you go out ocean fishing for something that weighs as much as you do.
Born a fisherman from New England, I loved the 11 years I lived in Miami in terms of fishing. Although an ocean dweller by preference, I did enjoy some decent lake fishing in Central Florida on occasion. But when it comes down to choosing, I'll take saltwater bass over almost any other fresh-water fish, save a few good homegrown river trout.

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
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 min twowheelsforever 27,325
Name something that gets past around (Feb '14) 6 min Crazy Jae 876
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 18 min -TheExam- 38,456
weird association 33 min Weazy Street 27
News Neighbour tells of 'weird barbecue' smell in ga... 39 min Weazy Street 5
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 40 min Crazy Jae 17,635
News Halloween display prompts 911 call 47 min Weazy Street 2
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 50 min Crazy Jae 6,043
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Weazy Street 223,354
Phrases that you don't hear very often (Nov '11) 3 hr wichita-rick 764
More from around the web