Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 205226 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

#112047 Apr 24, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>Good posts Thulium, I recall anything negative I may have said - you've proven your worth, and its appreciated. Kudos.
Don't worry about it. Thanks!

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#112048 Apr 24, 2014
old pa wrote:
Sounds to me like y'all are just a bunch of old hippies blabbering your nonsense. Yep, really makes ya feel big insulting people on a marginally important website.
I'm a multi millionaire. My doctor told me to do this for the stress relief.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#112049 Apr 24, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Even a manure spreader requires a load in order to spread it effectively. Why do you always show up here empty?
Is that the best defense you've got for the Dude's idiocy?....your own! ha,ha,ha.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#112050 Apr 24, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Irony meter go boom.
I DID answer you. I pointed out why entropy does not prevent evolution from occurring. As with every single other post I've ever made ever (this will quite likely apply to the future as well), you have failed to refute me.
And by the way, Livescience accepts all those scientific concepts you don't like for theological reasons, and rejects all the theological concepts you like for scientific reasons.
So in short you got caught lying for Jesus again. No wonder creationists are only taken seriously by the ignorant.(shrug)
The only thing that goes boom is the atomic bomb of stupidity you set off constantly! The concept that livescience is referring to is the one you stated is no problem to answer. Funny,...all their geniuses can't do it, but the all knowing Dude has the knowledge, you are one mother fukkking liar ,and always have been . Get back and check your debating points that you and the other puddle gooists live by.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#112052 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How can molecules "self assemble" to create life?
I'm not asking for wishful thinking.
What laws of chemistry are you referring to?
You have to have a helluva lot of faith to believe that

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#112053 Apr 24, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it take "intelligence" to slap together two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen atom to make a water molecule?
No,..its impossible , no one can be stupid enough to compare that with life self assembling. The force is strong in you young puddle padawan

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#112054 Apr 24, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Go ask a tree.
Explain orthology Hooter.
You are an absolute fool,...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#112055 Apr 24, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
<quoted text> Yeh, mee stoopid. But att leest mee havs God on mee side. Wiff Him, NUFFING IMPOSSIBLE!! Hee-hee-hee!! Matthew 17:20 and 19:26, Mark 10:27, and Luke 18:27.
Sorry, God is not on your side.

You are misreading a book that has been shown to be mostly myth.
NOISY TOILET

Tauranga, New Zealand

#112056 Apr 24, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It is a good thing I don't consider you with regard to my religious, philosophical and scientific concerns. Thanks for the input on that though.
This is what they call an old canard. Race then meant species and had nothing to do with the races of man. From what I have read of Charles Darwin, he was a typical Englishman of the time and no more racist than the norm and apparently less than the norm. This is just fundie desperation, reaching for any straw. Even if Darwin happened to be the most egregious racist of the last 1000 years, it wouldn't change the validity of the science. This is a straw man argument and ad hominem attack in absentia. In other words, if you can't beat the science then attack the man.
Thank you for playing. Better luck next time.
See?? There you go changing and twisting the story yet again. It's not Fundamental Christianity being desperate. Read the FULL title of the freakin' book. I stand by what I believe - that RACES in the title could only ultimately imply RACES of MEN (humans).
NOISY TOILET

Tauranga, New Zealand

#112057 Apr 24, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So far fundie creationists haven't been able to defeat the facts of science. You be good now yawl hear.
Wel, if you look properly, the facts of science clearly support Creation. I don't know if you know your left shoe from your right, son.
NOISY TOILET

Tauranga, New Zealand

#112058 Apr 25, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, God is not on your side.
You are misreading a book that has been shown to be mostly myth.
Oh, I thought you wouldn't give a stuff whether God is on my side or not as you most probably believe He doesn't exist ANYWAY. The book is not myth, bro.
NOISY TOILET

Tauranga, New Zealand

#112059 Apr 25, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
<quoted text> Wel, if you look properly, the facts of science clearly support Creation. I don't know if you know your left shoe from your right, son.
Sorry!! Typo error there.'Wel' was supposed to read 'Well'. Thousand apologies!!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#112060 Apr 25, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
<quoted text> Oh, I thought you wouldn't give a stuff whether God is on my side or not as you most probably believe He doesn't exist ANYWAY. The book is not myth, bro.
Parts of the Bible are clearly myth.

Most Christians agree.

Perhaps you would like to learn how we know that parts of the Bible are mythical.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#112061 Apr 25, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
<quoted text> Wel, if you look properly, the facts of science clearly support Creation. I don't know if you know your left shoe from your right, son.
Sorry, there is no scientific evidence for creation. And even creation "scientists" know this simple fact.

Again, perhaps I can help you to learn why this is so.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112062 Apr 25, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
4 MILLION YEARS, you really expect me to swallow that line of garbage? You can explain the last 4 MILLION YEARS of mankind?
You Evolutionist try to sound educated by using terms like "convergent" or "strata" or "morphology" to explain 4 million years of natural history is downright dishonest, foolish, ignorant and uneducated at the same time.
Projection of the highest order.

That's why you are unable to refute us.
SevenTee wrote:
Do you have a 4 million year old document that shows these creatures to back that crap up? Or did you find a bone fragment in the desert and make the whole thing up?
But I will say this you people are fun to make fun of.
Lock That Up
We don't need any such document. We have the fossils. With the correct characteristics. In the correct strata they should be. Unfortunately for you you just admitted your ignorance of the terminology we've used meaning you don't have a clue what we're talking about anyway.

Anyone can poke fun of anybody, that's not impressive. But what you CAN'T do is poke fun at us while simultaneously refuting our posts using scientific evidence, like we can with you.

Your lack of education is YOUR problem, not ours.(shrug)

Ready to apologise yet?

Thought so. Fundies have no shame.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#112063 Apr 25, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong...you do not have "a wealth of answers about the conditions of the early universe..." you have a wealth of pure conjecture. You are, among other things, assuming that no intelligent force is behind the motions of the galaxies. I don't accept atheism as the default position, because there is overwhelming evidence of intelligent design.
Physics, of course, is a science when it is used properly. But utilizing physics to promote your philosophical worldview is not science.
No, we simply don't *assume* their is an intelligence to the motion. We do that no more than we assume there is intelligence to the motion of the planets in our solar system. And the fact that our theories of gravity predict the motions observed shows that no assumption of an intelligence is required.

We do not have just conjecture about the early universe. We actually do have a wealth of data, whether it be from looking at the conditions in distant galaxies, to looking at the abundances of light elements, to looking at the details of the cosmic background radiation. This is much, much more than 'pure conjecture'. The fact that several proposed theories of cosmology have been shown wrong by the data (steady state, MOND, etc) shows that it is more than just speculation. The fact that we have precise answers to questions that were completely open a mere 15 years ago shows the revolution that has happened in cosmology recently.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112064 Apr 25, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong...you do not have "a wealth of answers about the conditions of the early universe..." you have a wealth of pure conjecture. You are, among other things, assuming that no intelligent force is behind the motions of the galaxies. I don't accept atheism as the default position, because there is overwhelming evidence of intelligent design.
Physics, of course, is a science when it is used properly. But utilizing physics to promote your philosophical worldview is not science.
There is no need to assume when you have no evidence. He didn't assume no intelligent forces, he just provided explanations that did not require any intelligent intervention.

So all YOU need to do is PROVIDE all this "overwhelming evidence" of intelligent intervention.

Take your time.

Explain orthology Hooter.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#112065 Apr 25, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Amino acids and sugars can self assemble.
Hydrocarbons can self assemble.
What have you proven?
Amino acids, sugars, and hydrocarbons are not "life".
But they are the basic building blocks of life. What extra do you think is required for the chemicals to *be* life?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112066 Apr 25, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Amino acids and sugars can self assemble.
Hydrocarbons can self assemble.
What have you proven?
Amino acids, sugars, and hydrocarbons are not "life".
You uh, DO know that literally everything in your body boils down to a bunch of chemical elements, right? Same as with every lifeform on Earth?

And that not a single one of them requires "special outside intelligent intervention" to come into being?

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112067 Apr 25, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
<quoted text> 1: So what's the diff between Evolutionists and Evolutionary Biologists?? I thought they were all on the same side. And 2: OK, so let's say you're right - that they CAN re-create the early Earth environment before any supposed life formed. Crunch question: How did that life form from just those chemicals, air, water etc lying around?? All I know is that there had to be something active to get things going. That something - or more specifically, someONE - had to have an intelligence to get life started. BTW, I'm no expert on Evolution or Creation.
Yes, from this post we were able to determine that you were not an expert.

Therefore you DON'T know for sure that a person was needed to make life. Maybe it was, maybe not.

Also since you are positing ANOTHER lifeform to make life, that means ANOTHER life form had to make that one, and another make that one, and another make... you get the idea. So who made your lifeform that made us?

The other problem you have is that all evidence shows that the universe is finite. Therefore there CAN'T be an infinite string of lifeforms making each other. Therefore life HAD to come from non-life at some point. But then since this happens every day all over the planet and has done for BILLIONS of years, this doesn't really sound like too much of a problem - EVERYTHING in your body is made of what was once non-living chemical materials.

Also if we look at the geological record, there is ZERO evidence of life prior to 3.8 billion years ago. And the first lifeforms were bacterial/microbial in nature, starting with basic biochemistry.

None of this proves a god DIDN'T do it. But it doesn't prove it did either.

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
News new Women bare breasts for gender equality on G... 3 min Spotted Girl 9
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 9 min Poppyann 14,161
News Sleepiness linked to traffic noise and pollution 10 min Dr Wu 1
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 13 min 8541 MARINE 59,917
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 16 min Sharlene45 197,731
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 17 min Jennifer Renee 19,852
News Kanye West released an explicit and bizarre new... 20 min Dr Wu 1
Make up your wildest Headline. (Aug '08) 1 hr Parden Pard 668
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 1 hr Fish_sticks 8,863
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 2 hr Sublime1 33,280
More from around the web