Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173332 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.

crocoduck

Orlando, FL

#112583 May 3, 2014
I watched another debate between Harris and another guy (forget his name) at Notre Dame. The discussion was about morality...and I didn't think it went much better than the Nye debate. I thought Harris missed the boat. The other guy had two basic questions (which didn't seemed to get sufficiently addressed by Harris if at all). The two basic questions. If there is a god(s) we then can have a basis for morality...a grounding point if you will. If there is not a god then morality is up to the individual's own perception. He was not even trying to establish that the god of the Bible is that basis for morality (although it was clear that is the god he believes in). Here is my question...

There are billions of people on the Earth and there are many many many (perhaps billions) different versions of Gods, religions, denominations, and even interpretations of religious scriptures. Even if there is a god or gods...our moral basis is STILL going to be based on our own perceptions of that god's preferred morality. No?

Either way, in my estimation, we are left with individual perceptions of what morality is or should be. It's not a very romantic conclusion...but IMO it is what it is. I prefer a more democratic and logically thought out structure for morality (treatment of other humans or lifeforms) outside of religious dogmas or dictatorship...even if there is no ultimate "morality" to compare it to
crocoduck

Orlando, FL

#112584 May 3, 2014
crocoduck wrote:
I just recently saw a (very poor) "debate" between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. In that debate Ham said that he likes science and that he believed (as evidenced) things in the universe are moving apart and that it is still consistent with "biblical creation". I think Nye missed the boat on several occasions. Here is (one of) my questions...
What does that 6.,000 year cosmic model look like or predict? If the universe is 6,000 years old (or so)...what happens to scientific constants and discovery and how would it be possible to predict anything correctly regarding the cosmos? I am truly a science novice but wouldn't that mean we couldn't see light coming from past 6,000 light years (which isn't even 1/10th of the way across our own galaxy)? Could we have found (even predicted) the cosmic microwave background radiation or gravity waves etc? Could we even study galaxies or stars beyond 6,000 light years? We wouldn't even be able to experience the black hole in the center of our universe because it's too far away.
How do creationists reconcile that 99% of the cosmos is beyond 6,000 light years? That constants changed? If so how much and when? If they did change...are "scientists" who believe in creation limited to branches of science outside of those which have reliable prediction methods which range outside of 6,000 years? The study of geology and sediments and tree rings and ice core layers, radioactive decay etc? How can any creationist be in one of these fields without sounding like a complete moron?
I said black hole in the center of our universe...I meant galaxy
crocoduck

Orlando, FL

#112585 May 3, 2014
crocoduck wrote:
I just recently saw a (very poor) "debate" between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. In that debate Ham said that he likes science and that he believed (as evidenced) things in the universe are moving apart and that it is still consistent with "biblical creation". I think Nye missed the boat on several occasions. Here is (one of) my questions...
What does that 6.,000 year cosmic model look like or predict? If the universe is 6,000 years old (or so)...what happens to scientific constants and discovery and how would it be possible to predict anything correctly regarding the cosmos? I am truly a science novice but wouldn't that mean we couldn't see light coming from past 6,000 light years (which isn't even 1/10th of the way across our own galaxy)? Could we have found (even predicted) the cosmic microwave background radiation or gravity waves etc? Could we even study galaxies or stars beyond 6,000 light years? We wouldn't even be able to experience the black hole in the center of our universe because it's too far away.
How do creationists reconcile that 99% of the cosmos is beyond 6,000 light years? That constants changed? If so how much and when? If they did change...are "scientists" who believe in creation limited to branches of science outside of those which have reliable prediction methods which range outside of 6,000 years? The study of geology and sediments and tree rings and ice core layers, radioactive decay etc? How can any creationist be in one of these fields without sounding like a complete moron?
Let's play Devil's Advocate for a second here and say that it is "possible" that scientific constants have changed from a creation point around 6,000 years ago until now. Let's take all the constants we know of and adjust them at a ratio of 6,000 years to 13.7 billion. How can we predict things in the future based on that same ratio? I would guess there are many other critical issues that arise which could prevent the formation of certain celestial objects (as we know them) or even the conditions for life to even exist.

I have often heard creationists use the idea that cosmological constants had to have been so EXACT (so precisely made by an intelligent designer) for the universe to not implode back in on itself or some other universal catastrophe. Perhaps life could not even exist without them. So which is it? Can they have their cake and eat it too?

What can "6,000 special creation accellerated constant cosmology" predict in the future and what ramifications does accellerated constants have on the past?
crocoduck

Orlando, FL

#112586 May 3, 2014
crocoduck wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's play Devil's Advocate for a second here and say that it is "possible" that scientific constants have changed from a creation point around 6,000 years ago until now. Let's take all the constants we know of and adjust them at a ratio of 6,000 years to 13.7 billion. How can we predict things in the future based on that same ratio? I would guess there are many other critical issues that arise which could prevent the formation of certain celestial objects (as we know them) or even the conditions for life to even exist.
I have often heard creationists use the idea that cosmological constants had to have been so EXACT (so precisely made by an intelligent designer) for the universe to not implode back in on itself or some other universal catastrophe. Perhaps life could not even exist without them. So which is it? Can they have their cake and eat it too?
What can "6,000 special creation accellerated constant cosmology" predict in the future and what ramifications does accellerated constants have on the past?
Can a cosmological constant even be a constant if we have to accellerate it to accomodate "6,000 year special creation accellerated constant cosmology"?

So ALL the "standard scientific" predictions and discoveries made which are based on the idea that scientific constants are indeed constants...were miraculously lucky. I know creationists are big on miracles (statistical anomolies)...but it begs the question...why does Christian god perform so many "miracles" for secular scientists and leave the "Biblical literalists" struggling for explanations?
crocoduck

Orlando, FL

#112587 May 3, 2014
crocoduck wrote:
I watched another debate between Harris and another guy (forget his name) at Notre Dame. The discussion was about morality...and I didn't think it went much better than the Nye debate. I thought Harris missed the boat. The other guy had two basic questions (which didn't seemed to get sufficiently addressed by Harris if at all). The two basic questions. If there is a god(s) we then can have a basis for morality...a grounding point if you will. If there is not a god then morality is up to the individual's own perception. He was not even trying to establish that the god of the Bible is that basis for morality (although it was clear that is the god he believes in). Here is my question...
There are billions of people on the Earth and there are many many many (perhaps billions) different versions of Gods, religions, denominations, and even interpretations of religious scriptures. Even if there is a god or gods...our moral basis is STILL going to be based on our own perceptions of that god's preferred morality. No?
Either way, in my estimation, we are left with individual perceptions of what morality is or should be. It's not a very romantic conclusion...but IMO it is what it is. I prefer a more democratic and logically thought out structure for morality (treatment of other humans or lifeforms) outside of religious dogmas or dictatorship...even if there is no ultimate "morality" to compare it to
Let's say there is a god (let's say Xtian god) that has a moral standard for every situation that has ever or could ever come up in eternity. How can we come up with morally definitive answers for items and issues which are NOT directly or clearly addressed in the Bible?

Let's say something like stem cell research or internet regulations. Are issues not clearly or definitively addressed in the Bible up to individual moral judgements?

Although Biblical literalists may have a definitive guide on how harshly they can beat their slaves, or what to do with people who work on Saturday, or what to do with people who hang a "likeness" of god or Jesus in their house, or what to do with kids who give some lip to their parents, etc...where is the ULTIMATE guide to morality? How do we address the "gray areas"?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112588 May 4, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
<quoted text> Evo: "No, I don't believe Creation ever happened". Creo: As soon as you can provide some physical evidence that it did not happen while also explaining away the physical evidence that it did, rational people will take notice. Ha!!Ha!!
Do you mean "creation happened" or do you mean "Biblical Creation" happened?

We have piles of evidence that the biblical creation story is mythical, not literal.

But you are still free to claim that the Big Bang 13.6 million years ago was an act of Creation if you like...nobody can argue. What we CAN argue, with boatloads of evidence, is that the Big Bang happened, based on several independently confirming lines of evidence.

We can also argue, with even more evidence, that however the Big Bang originated, it resulted in a universe capable of sustaining the conditions in which evolution can operate. Evolution is confirmed by multiple independent lines of evidence which is why 97% of all scientists and more than 99% of biologists accept the theory.

The actual origin of life, as opposed to its evolution, is a subject of less certainty and we have not established yet whether it could originate through natural processes. But nobody who understands science still believes that God poofed all the animals into existence one day a few thousand years ago. Only nutters still believe that.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112589 May 4, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
Hi-ho, folks!! I guess I'd better move on I suppose. It was great debating with all you Evos and atheists out there in cyberspace. I believe Creation to be true because it gives humans reason for their existence upon this Earth, in this universe, and in the whole of God's creation. The Evos and atheists out there have a right to discredit the existence of God, but I won't believe them, so I will give them TWO provisos. 1: That they can produce SOMETHING out of NOTHING (something which only GOD could do); and 2: Produce a LIVING ORGANISM out of NON-LIVING (DEAD) matter (another thing only GOD could have accomplished). If THEY can achieve those two challenges, then I will GLADLY burn my Bible, relinquish Christianity then join the ranks of the atheists and Evos. Meanwhile, I'm quite happy where I am. God bless you all and BYE!!
The problem being, your Bible does not really give humans any purpose at all either, merely shifts the question to "God wanted it" though its totally opaque as to why God would need or want all this stuffing around.

As for creating life...firstly its just another pointless standard offered because we have already achieved the earlier standards offered.

I mean, why would you burn your Bible if we happened to create some life? If we do it, I am sure it will not change Believers' views in the least. You will not burn your Bible. You will move the goal posts and point out that we did not create the atoms and energy of the living organisms we created in our test tubes.

You have an infinite regress available.
So who cares?

You just keep on believing the Bible gives you "purpose" and the thinkers and doers will get on with discovering that the way the world works and actually came to be is far vaster and more exciting than the imaginings of ancient goat-herds.

God as a concept, you are welcome to. But Genesis as a reliable account? Its a joke.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#112591 May 4, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to believe whatever liberal academic garbage you can find on the Internet.
It is a free country, just don't force your evolution religion in the schools, "Separation of Church and State"
You post some of the silliest stuff. I always get a good laugh.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#112592 May 4, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to believe whatever liberal academic garbage you can find on the Internet.
It is a free country, just don't force your evolution religion in the schools, "Separation of Church and State"
The theory of evolution is not "liberal". It is apolitical. Why would you make such a foolish implication as that?

And evolution is not a religion, your garbage views are. There have been multiple court cases, one of the latest, the Dover trial, was overseen by a conservative judge. The creationists got their dream judge and they still lost.

Oh wait, he was not quite their dream judge. He was not a total idiot.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#112593 May 4, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to believe whatever liberal academic garbage you can find on the Internet.
It is a free country, just don't force your evolution religion in the schools, "Separation of Church and State"
Well if that's REALLY the way you feel, then why don't you sue anybody who teaches evolution in school. You have that right.

See how far you get.

I love the smell of fried fundies in the morning.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#112594 May 4, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
<quoted text> Yes!! TRILLIONS of tons of water and rock WERE moved during the flood. Just look up your dictionary for the word CATASTROPHE. I would guess the Flood was, if anything, not only a physical purification, but also a spiritual cleansing of the Earth, to start anew again. And about you opinions, sure, you are entitled to them just like anyone else on this forum.
Yes, and this particular catastrophe would have wiped out everything on Earth. Noah's boat included.

That's not an opinion.

But don't worry, you can always rescue your stories with godmagic.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#112595 May 4, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
<quoted text> I'm getting tired of the halitosis exuding from your skanky, stinky mouth, bro. Hoo boy!! That breath of yours is LETHAL!!
Who cares what you think.(shrug)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#112596 May 4, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
<quoted text> This where Creation trumps Evolution: In that NOT ONLY can it explain HOW life got here, BUT ALSO the WHY'S and WHEREFORE'S, too. You have EMOTIONS, right?? You laugh, you cry, you feel happy, sad, lonely, angry, peaceful, etc...Now let me ask you. How do things like emotions EVOLVE?? HOW is that possible?? You may think you came from apes, but I will always believe I was made in the image of God.
Then God is an ape.

Don't blame us. that's just the way He made it.(shrug)
HAPPY

Richmond, VA

#112598 May 5, 2014
Tinka wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Happy!!!
One would think that to become happy is a goal should be pushed by those that know happiness is...
Is part in all things that is True and so how about healing how we dare speak of it?
Is that too much connected with the SS ?
Maybe they should vaporize our atmosphere with some good ole Fashioned Skunk weed LOL...
Smelled one last Night...
To have smelled it once maybe is enough Happy yes and Truth
Pyramids? Is there anything written yet in it's truth to how they really were built??
HI Tinka! The pyramids may have been formned on sight. The masons may have used a secret tecnique of hydrating crushed fine lime to produce low air content in the kiln above 8000 psi for the mass to form like rock. The Bible mentions that slime of some sort was used in the building and mortar to make bricks in the first ones, and as the later ones advanced in Egypt the process may have improved. I don't use drugs, but the Eqyptian priests used drugs back in the days the pyramids were built, and they could only have came from South America,but that is whole new can of worms Go figure....

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#112599 May 5, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares what you think.(shrug)
2 ways. Likewise. And who cares about yours.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112600 May 5, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to believe whatever liberal academic garbage you can find on the Internet.
It is a free country, just don't force your evolution religion in the schools, "Separation of Church and State"
As soon as you can determine that the physical evidence of the fossil record, the genome, atavisms, biogeography, embryology, genetic algorithms, and so on, are merely religious artefacts, you will have a case.

In the meantime, thank God, our kids will have access to rational, empirical, critical science.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112601 May 5, 2014
HAPPY wrote:
<quoted text>HI Tinka! The pyramids may have been formned on sight. The masons may have used a secret tecnique of hydrating crushed fine lime to produce low air content in the kiln above 8000 psi for the mass to form like rock. The Bible mentions that slime of some sort was used in the building and mortar to make bricks in the first ones, and as the later ones advanced in Egypt the process may have improved. I don't use drugs, but the Eqyptian priests used drugs back in the days the pyramids were built, and they could only have came from South America,but that is whole new can of worms Go figure....
You managed to write this without drugs?

I'm impressed.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112602 May 5, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
<quoted text> Oh, so now you're calling ME a troll?? Ha!!Ha!!
Yep.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#112604 May 5, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure thing Pal. You found a rock now you know the origin of life.
I am so happy for you
Not just one rock. Millions of fossils have been found. They all support the theory of evolution and not creationism. The biological evidence is even more compelling.

Anyone who disputes the theory of evolution is ignorant at best today. The professional disputers are lying fools. There are quite a few ignorant fools here. It is foolish to keep yourself ignorant when education is available.

Which do you prefer to be?

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#112605 May 5, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure thing Pal. You found a rock now you know the origin of life.
I am so happy for you
Hello ..its called Earth, where are you from?

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 Jersey teacher who was late for work 111 ti... 3 min wichita-rick 2
News Texas woman arrested, fired after allegedly ste... 11 min wichita-rick 7
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 21 min wichita-rick 169,155
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 33 min Princess Hey 8,879
Just start naming actors and actresses (Sep '11) 59 min grace-fallen 3,051
News Colorado Police Chief Helps Deliver Own Daughte... 1 hr wichita-rick 2
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Grandma 43,338
More from around the web