Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222920 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.

thulium

Perris, CA

#111769 Apr 21, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>Good grief. Y'all religies react to education and reason the way a vampire reacts to garlic and silver mirrors.
Planets do not "float." They have structure but are not structures. They are spherical because of gravity, not because they are not pyramids, mounds or cones.
News flash - they are round, but they are not discs as "the Bible tells us."
What you are really asking is couched in your definition of "created." God did it with magic, of course. 0.o
They are structures not created by man and yet more stable than a pyramid the most stable structure according to you. Planets do not float based on your definition. And they do not fly either like airplanes based on earth's physical laws. So if you have evidence how gravity evolved on its own, please provide your source.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111770 Apr 21, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure there are a lot of discrepancies in the bible stories that contradict science. The problem with science is that the evidence from what we observe now is used to explain the Earth's past. You think the earth took a longer time to evolve (for example taking millions of years for a mountain to form) and yet scientists explain the beginning of the universe from a Big Bang which is supposed to be some violent explosion. If that theory is true then at the beginning was a violent event that spawned galaxies and everything in it. What makes you think that the evolution process of the present day is consistent with the past? If it is, the planets in our solar system would be highly unstable because it's so enormous that it takes a much more stronger force for it to form before it gets stable that they are now. Imagine a moon forming inch by inch in millions of years? Have scientists thought about what conditions it would have caused?
Honestly, I'm not even sure where to start to address your fundamental misconceptions.
You seem to be completely ignorant about the topics you are proffering as examples.
You are attempting to describe and parallel completely different things that operate by completely different mechanisms. It's like saying since it only takes 10 minutes to bake cookies it shouldn't take 30 years to grow a tree.
Put down the Bible and read a couple science books - REAL science books. NOT the pseudoscience dog poo they carry at the corner Christian bookstore.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111771 Apr 21, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
They are structures not created by man and yet more stable than a pyramid the most stable structure according to you. Planets do not float based on your definition. And they do not fly either like airplanes based on earth's physical laws. So if you have evidence how gravity evolved on its own, please provide your source.
Word salad?
thulium

Perris, CA

#111772 Apr 21, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Honestly, I'm not even sure where to start to address your fundamental misconceptions.
You seem to be completely ignorant about the topics you are proffering as examples.
You are attempting to describe and parallel completely different things that operate by completely different mechanisms. It's like saying since it only takes 10 minutes to bake cookies it shouldn't take 30 years to grow a tree.
Put down the Bible and read a couple science books - REAL science books. NOT the pseudoscience dog poo they carry at the corner Christian bookstore.
Just what I thought. You guys resort to ad hom when you can't provide evidence. Your useless banter will not help.

I am giving you a scenario based on your logic. I'm not comparing apples to oranges, I'm just pointing out the flaws. No matter how good your vocabulary is or what scientific facts you know, if you can't grasp the concept of what I'm trying to say, it won't do shit to you. Take a dump and study how it can be used for energy. Oh wait, somebody beat you into it. Sorry!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111773 Apr 21, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>It says the fountains of the great deep were broken up, so I see this as much of the water came from below the crust of the earth. As far as the mentioning of other places, it just says "abroad".
Just to submerge Mt. Ararat would require 17,000 feet of water. Do the math. The flood didn't happen. The Bible didn't give any information that a few rabbis weren't capable of inventing.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111774 Apr 21, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
They are structures not created by man and yet more stable than a pyramid the most stable structure according to you. Planets do not float based on your definition. And they do not fly either like airplanes based on earth's physical laws. So if you have evidence how gravity evolved on its own, please provide your source.
Are you so determined to disagree with a non-Christian that you are wholly incapable of understanding what one says? A pyramid, cone or mound is a stable structure because its base is broader than its apex. Take a handful of sand and pour it onto a table - what shape does it take? Not a sphere or a cube. This simple and obvious lesson was not lost on the ancient Egyptians or Mayans, and it has NOTHING to do with Noah and Nimrod building sacrificial alters in the Yucatan.
Planets do not "float". To float something must have buoyancy. Look it up.
The planets of the solar system are in orbit (falling) around the sun. The sun (and their own) gravity is the attractive force, their velocity is the repellent force. The moon is falling around the Earth, but its velocity is slightly higher than the Earth and moon's combined gravity. Eventually the moon will move far enough away to break orbit.
I am not a physicist, but physicists have been studying gravity for centuries. You don't want to know what "makes" gravity or how and when did gravity come into existence, though those are some of the answers they are looking for. You want some way of legitimately phrasing "Who created" gravity in the first place? There is no way of making that question legitimate.
BTW, would you care to explain how "earth's physical laws" are different than Mars' physical laws or Jupiter's physical laws?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111775 Apr 21, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure there are a lot of discrepancies in the bible stories that contradict science. The problem with science is that the evidence from what we observe now is used to explain the Earth's past. You think the earth took a longer time to evolve (for example taking millions of years for a mountain to form) and yet scientists explain the beginning of the universe from a Big Bang which is supposed to be some violent explosion. If that theory is true then at the beginning was a violent event that spawned galaxies and everything in it. What makes you think that the evolution process of the present day is consistent with the past? If it is, the planets in our solar system would be highly unstable because it's so enormous that it takes a much more stronger force for it to form before it gets stable that they are now. Imagine a moon forming inch by inch in millions of years? Have scientists thought about what conditions it would have caused?
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-tick...

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111776 Apr 21, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
Just what I thought. You guys resort to ad hom when you can't provide evidence. Your useless banter will not help.
I am giving you a scenario based on your logic. I'm not comparing apples to oranges, I'm just pointing out the flaws. No matter how good your vocabulary is or what scientific facts you know, if you can't grasp the concept of what I'm trying to say, it won't do shit to you. Take a dump and study how it can be used for energy. Oh wait, somebody beat you into it. Sorry!
No, you were giving a scenario based on your ignorance of science and lack of understanding logic. You compared the "explosion" of the Big Bang with the accretion of the moon.
What you are trying to ask is for science to substantiate the Goddiditwithmagicinsevendays theory. That isn't a concept, it is a confirmation bias.
THE LONE WORKER

United States

#111777 Apr 21, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Just to submerge Mt. Ararat would require 17,000 feet of water. Do the math. The flood didn't happen. The Bible didn't give any information that a few rabbis weren't capable of inventing.
There are seven land masses that may have broken apart and caused the water to cover the earth when they moved. The number seven was mentioned in the Genesis account also regarding the birds that were used to reseed the earth.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#111778 Apr 21, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>There are seven land masses that may have broken apart and caused the water to cover the earth when they moved. The number seven was mentioned in the Genesis account also regarding the birds that were used to reseed the earth.
Pangaea was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras, forming approximately 300 million years ago.[2] It began to break apart around 100 million years ago.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/pangaea

Note: "It began to break apart around 100 million years ago."
THE LONE WORKER

United States

#111779 Apr 21, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Pangaea was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras, forming approximately 300 million years ago.[2] It began to break apart around 100 million years ago.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/pangaea
Note: "It began to break apart around 100 million years ago."
The earth moving waves such as the Love Wave that could have occurred if the event happened at once, may have caused things to settle and appear to be millions of years in the making.
thulium

Perris, CA

#111780 Apr 21, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you so determined to disagree with a non-Christian that you are wholly incapable of understanding what one says? A pyramid, cone or mound is a stable structure because its base is broader than its apex. Take a handful of sand and pour it onto a table - what shape does it take? Not a sphere or a cube. This simple and obvious lesson was not lost on the ancient Egyptians or Mayans, and it has NOTHING to do with Noah and Nimrod building sacrificial alters in the Yucatan.
Planets do not "float". To float something must have buoyancy. Look it up.
The planets of the solar system are in orbit (falling) around the sun. The sun (and their own) gravity is the attractive force, their velocity is the repellent force. The moon is falling around the Earth, but its velocity is slightly higher than the Earth and moon's combined gravity. Eventually the moon will move far enough away to break orbit.
I am not a physicist, but physicists have been studying gravity for centuries. You don't want to know what "makes" gravity or how and when did gravity come into existence, though those are some of the answers they are looking for. You want some way of legitimately phrasing "Who created" gravity in the first place? There is no way of making that question legitimate.
BTW, would you care to explain how "earth's physical laws" are different than Mars' physical laws or Jupiter's physical laws?
Don't school me on elementary science, because you still don't understand. We know gravity is a fundamental force in the universe but you don't think it was created. So where did it come from?

I mentioned earth's physical laws because we depend on it and it's what we know. Do you think that aeronautics we learn in physics apply in a distant star system or how it works in a binary star?
thulium

Perris, CA

#111781 Apr 21, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you were giving a scenario based on your ignorance of science and lack of understanding logic. You compared the "explosion" of the Big Bang with the accretion of the moon.
What you are trying to ask is for science to substantiate the Goddiditwithmagicinsevendays theory. That isn't a concept, it is a confirmation bias.
According to the theory of evolution, rocks formed in a given fixed amount of time assuming that evolution in our solar system have been consistent since the time of Big Bang. If that was the case, imagine a small rock forming into a moon inch by inch in billions of years and that which it affects the planet its orbiting. What conditions might have been in during a slow process of evolution vs. a rapid and more violent event such as a supernova? I was just stating a possibility of a less stable environment therefore the time factor and speed would have been different in the past. It's like watching a movie in slow motion and believing its happening in real time. It doesn't make sense to me.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111782 Apr 21, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the theory of evolution, rocks formed...
You say you don't need to be schooled in elementary science then you say this. Wow.
thulium wrote:
It doesn't make sense to me.
I can see why.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111783 Apr 21, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>There are seven land masses that may have broken apart and caused the water to cover the earth when they moved. The number seven was mentioned in the Genesis account also regarding the birds that were used to reseed the earth.
You still haven't done the math. If you are now going to claim that tectonic forces submerged the land masses you are adding a dimension of catastrophe that dwarfs 40 days and nights of rain and the "founts of the deep".
and...? Are you going to claim that birds carried the seeds of kangaroos to Australia and opossums to North America?
The "Genesis account" is bogus.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111784 Apr 21, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the theory of evolution, rocks formed in a given fixed amount of time assuming that evolution in our solar system have been consistent since the time of Big Bang. If that was the case, imagine a small rock forming into a moon inch by inch in billions of years and that which it affects the planet its orbiting. What conditions might have been in during a slow process of evolution vs. a rapid and more violent event such as a supernova? I was just stating a possibility of a less stable environment therefore the time factor and speed would have been different in the past. It's like watching a movie in slow motion and believing its happening in real time. It doesn't make sense to me.
Actually, the sun is probably a third generation star. No thing in the solar system aside from hydrogen, background radiation and subatomic particles are "since the Big Bang", and there isn't any reason to believe that physics has been either inconstant or inconsistent at any time since.
If what you are saying doesn't even make any sense to you, you should just imagine how it sounds to everyone else. Didn't I already ask you to read a science book?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#111785 Apr 21, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, planets are round and much much larger in structure and guess what they float. I guess there is no mystery in that either. So what created gravity?
Planets do not 'float'. They orbit. Gravity is uncreated, like all physical laws. It makes no sense to ask how the fundamental laws arose because to describe their origin you need to refer to some laws.
THE LONE WORKER

United States

#111786 Apr 21, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You still haven't done the math. If you are now going to claim that tectonic forces submerged the land masses you are adding a dimension of catastrophe that dwarfs 40 days and nights of rain and the "founts of the deep".
and...? Are you going to claim that birds carried the seeds of kangaroos to Australia and opossums to North America?
The "Genesis account" is bogus.
I don't claim to know what all the birds were or their kinds. I am just pointing out that the scriptures indicate that they were what was sent out to seed the earth.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#111787 Apr 21, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure there are a lot of discrepancies in the bible stories that contradict science. The problem with science is that the evidence from what we observe now is used to explain the Earth's past. You think the earth took a longer time to evolve (for example taking millions of years for a mountain to form) and yet scientists explain the beginning of the universe from a Big Bang which is supposed to be some violent explosion.
I'll ignore a few of the minor misunderstandings here.
First, the Big bang was NOT and explosion in the usual sense. It does NOT have material flung out from a central point into surrounding space.
Second, the solar system and the Earth formed about 9 billion years after the start of the universal expansion. In other words, the age of the Earth is only 1/3 the age of the universe. So you are comparing apples and oranges in terms of timing.
Third, the sun is a *third* generation star. It formed well after the 'violent' aspects of the initial expansion, or even those associated with galaxy formation had died down.
Fourth, you are confusing events that are happening at wildly different scales. When considering universal expansion, we need to consider distances between galaxies outside of 'local' galactic clusters. The solar system and planets are incredibly small on this scale. They are mere dots even in our galaxy, let alone our local cluster. The universal expansion doesn't apply within a galaxy because of gravitational effects.
If that theory is true then at the beginning was a violent event that spawned galaxies and everything in it. What makes you think that the evolution process of the present day is consistent with the past? If it is, the planets in our solar system would be highly unstable because it's so enormous that it takes a much more stronger force for it to form before it gets stable that they are now.
And this shows your confusion about the relative scales of the different phenomena. Our solar system and planets are very small on the scale of our galaxy, which is small on the scale of the universal expansion. A 'violent' phenomenon on the universal scale can be very 'calm' on the scale of the solar system. You are also confusing the times when these things happened: the solar system didn't form until quite a long time had passed. There were two generations of stars before our sun was formed: the very chemical elements we are made from didn't exist until the first generation of stars went supernova.
Imagine a moon forming inch by inch in millions of years? Have scientists thought about what conditions it would have caused?
Of course they have. And such conditions are in no way contradictory to the Big bang scenario. A cloud of dust and gas collapsing under gravity to form the planets and the sun is a very small scale event even in our galaxy.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111788 Apr 21, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>I don't claim to know what all the birds were or their kinds. I am just pointing out that the scriptures indicate that they were what was sent out to seed the earth.
And just to make it clear, the scriptures do not impress me because they are scripture.. Perhaps they'd carry more weight if they were factual, actual and true, but since they aren't, they don't.

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
Let's Play Songs With Four Words,... (Jul '15) 7 min Bovenzi13 154
Let's Play Song Titles With Only Three Words,... (Dec '13) 20 min Bovenzi13 715
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? (Nov '14) 25 min Bovenzi13 1,260
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 26 min Sharlene45 2,950
Why Do White People Start Stuff They Canít Fini... 31 min Chilli J 23
News FAA looking after pilot drops turkeys on Arkans... 35 min Parden Pard 3
News Children receive minor injuries after bounce ho... 47 min Parden Pard 2
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr LIM 28,799
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Just Sayin 224,335
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 2 hr whatimeisit 6,403
More from around the web