Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 204832 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

#112880 May 15, 2014
Spinning wrote:
Seriously, it was neither evolution or creation. This is a complete waste of brain cells. We are all here, right? Why all the fuss about a past we cannot understand. What about making a better future?
That is exactly what science tries to do. Please explain how forcing religion into the science classroom would further that ambition.
Seriously

Beverly, MA

#112881 May 15, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
That is exactly what science tries to do. Please explain how forcing religion into the science classroom would further that ambition.
Do not want religion. Just saying neither one is probably true, so why debate it? Science can exist without evolution. Evolution is a theory and has not been proven. I can still classify animals, do genetic studies and not really have to buy into evolution. There are some things about the theory that are intriguing, but that's about it.

Religion has nothing to offer because it has not provided something that you can test or observe and replicate. Actually, neither has evolution. You cannot really test evolution. You can observe and ponder through paleontology and classifying animals, but is is far from complete. We have not really been able to observe a species transform due to environmental factors. If I am wrong on this, please tell me about one because I would enjoy reading about it.

Can't we just test a hypothesis as it should be done, without so much emotional drama? If evolution is indeed the mechanism, then it will pan out. But until then, let!s just do the experiments, solve the mathematics, make the observations and try to replicate. Can someone really put up a viable argument with that?

Quantum Mechanics has turned a lot of things upside down, so am prepared for a third theory to rear up any day now.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#112882 May 15, 2014
Seriously wrote:
<quoted text>
Do not want religion. Just saying neither one is probably true, so why debate it? Science can exist without evolution. Evolution is a theory and has not been proven. I can still classify animals, do genetic studies and not really have to buy into evolution. There are some things about the theory that are intriguing, but that's about it.
Religion has nothing to offer because it has not provided something that you can test or observe and replicate. Actually, neither has evolution. You cannot really test evolution. You can observe and ponder through paleontology and classifying animals, but is is far from complete. We have not really been able to observe a species transform due to environmental factors. If I am wrong on this, please tell me about one because I would enjoy reading about it.
Can't we just test a hypothesis as it should be done, without so much emotional drama? If evolution is indeed the mechanism, then it will pan out. But until then, let!s just do the experiments, solve the mathematics, make the observations and try to replicate. Can someone really put up a viable argument with that?
Quantum Mechanics has turned a lot of things upside down, so am prepared for a third theory to rear up any day now.
You are scientifically ignorant.

Google "Scientific Theory" before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112883 May 15, 2014
Spinning wrote:
Seriously, it was neither evolution or creation. This is a complete waste of brain cells. We are all here, right? Why all the fuss about a past we cannot understand. What about making a better future?
Alright, What percentage of AGW deniers do you think are self professed fundamentalist Christians and/or creationists?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112884 May 15, 2014
Seriously wrote:
<quoted text>
Do not want religion. Just saying neither one is probably true, so why debate it?
I grant you the creation point but Why is evolution "probably" not true?
Seriously wrote:
Science can exist without evolution. Evolution is a theory and has not been proven.
No theory is ever proven.
Seriously wrote:
I can still classify animals, do genetic studies and not really have to buy into evolution. There are some things about the theory that are intriguing, but that's about it.
Such as?
Seriously wrote:
Religion has nothing to offer because it has not provided something that you can test or observe and replicate. Actually, neither has evolution. You cannot really test evolution. You can observe and ponder through paleontology and classifying animals, but is is far from complete. We have not really been able to observe a species transform due to environmental factors. If I am wrong on this, please tell me about one because I would enjoy reading about it.
When you use the word "transform", yes, you are wrong. What kind of "transformation" are you expecting?
Seriously wrote:
Can't we just test a hypothesis as it should be done, without so much emotional drama? If evolution is indeed the mechanism, then it will pan out. But until then, let!s just do the experiments, solve the mathematics, make the observations and try to replicate. Can someone really put up a viable argument with that?

Isn't that exactly what science is doing?

[QUOTE who="Seriously"]Quan tum Mechanics has turned a lot of things upside down, so am prepared for a third theory to rear up any day now.
Uh-huh.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112885 May 15, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You are scientifically ignorant.
Google "Scientific Theory" before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
Might be too late, I'm afraid.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#112886 May 15, 2014
Spinning wrote:
Seriously, it was neither evolution or creation. This is a complete waste of brain cells. We are all here, right? Why all the fuss about a past we cannot understand. What about making a better future?
Just because you can't understand doesn't mean others can't. It WAS evolution, and still is. And thanks to evolution we have had antibiotics which have saved millions of lives. Ergo understanding the past, as well as the present, can help make a better future.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#112887 May 15, 2014
Seriously wrote:
Do not want religion. Just saying neither one is probably true, so why debate it?
There is no scientific debate.

Evolution is a fact, creationism is wrong, period. What we bicker about on here in this tiny little corner of teh interwebz is irrelevant.
Seriously wrote:
Science can exist without evolution. Evolution is a theory and has not been proven. I can still classify animals, do genetic studies and not really have to buy into evolution.
Utterly wrong.

Well, you CAN, but then you wouldn't be able to understand any of it. Ya know, kinda like creationists.

That's why they can't decide over which hominid fossils are "fully apes" or "fully human". That's why they can't decide whether archaeopteryx is a bird, dinosaur or a fake. That's why they can't provide a rational definition of what a "Biblical kind" is.

Despite your lack of interest in religion, you want to join in their ignorance.

Oh by the way, evolution is quite easily demonstrable via the scientific method:
Seriously wrote:
Actually, neither has evolution. You cannot really test evolution. You can observe and ponder through paleontology and classifying animals, but is is far from complete. We have not really been able to observe a species transform due to environmental factors. If I am wrong on this, please tell me about one because I would enjoy reading about it.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Seriously wrote:
Can't we just test a hypothesis as it should be done, without so much emotional drama? If evolution is indeed the mechanism, then it will pan out. But until then, let!s just do the experiments, solve the mathematics, make the observations and try to replicate. Can someone really put up a viable argument with that?
Quantum Mechanics has turned a lot of things upside down, so am prepared for a third theory to rear up any day now.
Unfortunately, due to your complete and utter total lack of science education, you are simply not aware that all you demand for evolution has already been done. Probably long before you were born. Evolution is settled. It's fact. The scientific community accepts this. Those that don't are creationists or the very occasional crank. All the "emotional drama" you refer to is merely a political controversy manufactured by the Religious Right because they hate education. There is no scientific controversy over the validity of evolution, and hasn't been since the 50's at the very latest.

Sorry if you don't like it.
Slightly Thick

Beverly, MA

#112888 May 15, 2014
So everything is black and white? Everything is some sort of dichotomy? If I do not completely buy into evolution, that makes me a creationist? Pretty sure science will demonstrate that dichotomies are not always the answer. Ever pondered Quantum Computing?

And really, I am just asking questions. No need to be so insulting. And I am not really liking it or not. Actually just neutral, I have no personal investment in the subject. I think that is what is wrong with these conversations is that folks get so bent outta shape over the smallest stuff and then feel the need to get personal and rude.

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#112889 May 15, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
That is exactly what science tries to do. Please explain how forcing religion into the science classroom would further that ambition.
Would it really it would further our future?
I don't think so but then I am sure we are not from the same planet...

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#112890 May 15, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because you can't understand doesn't mean others can't. It WAS evolution, and still is. And thanks to evolution we have had antibiotics which have saved millions of lives. Ergo understanding the past, as well as the present, can help make a better future.
Sure, like inventing pocks...

Understanding there's a place for everyone after all has been said done tried to top the last experiment...another and another despite we have a CURE!!!!!!!!! Isn't that really what Science is about...Testing...

Well nothing is 100 percent completely sure now is it... But so is there other life existing or not?
Humans are not it or are they, what saves?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#112891 May 15, 2014
Slightly Thick wrote:
So everything is black and white? Everything is some sort of dichotomy?
No, but for all practical intents and purposes on this forum it pretty much may as well be.

It's anti-science against science. I support the latter.
Slightly Thick wrote:
If I do not completely buy into evolution, that makes me a creationist?
Not necessarily, but it does demonstrate that you have had zero education in biology.
Slightly Thick wrote:
Pretty sure science will demonstrate that dichotomies are not always the answer.
Suppose that depends on the individual subject.

However in the case of evolution, there is no alternative. As always in ANY scientific field, it's always possible that there is another alternative, but no-one has come up with one yet.

So until then we go with what works. And evolution works pretty darn well.
Slightly Thick wrote:
Ever pondered Quantum Computing?
Not very often, but it's not a subject that really affects evolution all that much. Unless you take into account that (I think) they were used in helping us map the human genome, and thus helped demonstrate evolution in the process.

Other than that there's only Polymath who even comes close to being able to discuss quantum physics and he's not here right now.

But in general, the anti-science crowd generally fall into two camps about it:

1 - People who reject quantum physics because they don't understand it or don't like perceived philosophical implications of it.

2 - New agers who think it proves stuff that in reality it doesn't.

So that's why it tends to give me pause any time anybody brings it up.
Slightly Thick wrote:
And really, I am just asking questions. No need to be so insulting. And I am not really liking it or not. Actually just neutral, I have no personal investment in the subject. I think that is what is wrong with these conversations is that folks get so bent outta shape over the smallest stuff and then feel the need to get personal and rude.
If you start babbling about car mechanics and get it all wrong, would it be rude for others to point out that you don't have a clue what you're talking about?

Fact is you didn't come across as neutral when you first started making claims about evolution and how it didn't work so good or was irrelevant to modern science. And the fact was you couldn't have been more wrong. It's one thing to come in from a neutral point of not knowing and asking questions. But quite another thing entirely when you claim it's irrelevant to biology. Evolution IS biology.

I apologise if we sometimes come off a little blunt, but also keep in mind that we've been here every day for years dealing with the anti-science claims of the anti-science crowd. Eventually one does reach a point where we call a spade a spade.
The Facts

Owensboro, KY

#112892 May 15, 2014
Genetic studies and fossil evidence show that Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa by between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.

The recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa is the predominant position held within the scientific community. There are differing theories on whether there was a single exodus or several.

Genetic testing in the last decade has revealed that several now extinct archaic human species may have interbred with modern humans. These species have been claimed to have left their genetic imprint in different regions across the world

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#112894 May 15, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is a scientific theory? Or so they claim. No one can answer the question: What exactly was it that took evolution over the top to become a scientific theory?
Here is what is not being put forth on that page. There is really no "exact" criteria that has to be met. According to how this is written, any half descent theory can be this. The reason they won't list it as 1,2,3 criteria etc... Is because it would make evolution have to meet an exact criteria that it cannot meet. If anyone can list it 1,2,3, etc... on what criteria has to be met. You can start another thread and we can test evolution to see if it actually meets that criteria. But let's be honest, no one can actually do this or it would have already be done.
One more thing, I already know some evolutionists will be tempted to use the Nobel Prize comment here. Which since they gave it to Gore makes it have no meaning to me and many have lost respect for it because of that. So the comment would be pointless.
Evolution is based on 5 observations of natural selection, Evolution is an observation, the Theory of Evolution, or the ToE is the explanation.

These observations are what we see that happens with all living organisms , it is verified many times over and the crux of our knowledge of the how life in our biosphere works.

http://animals.about.com/od/evolution/ss/evol...

You can deny it, but it doesn't make any difference, it's what we "know" to be fact from our eyes and our understanding. Denying it only makes you look foolish.
It's ok to believe in god, but you better say god made things evolve or you will look dense.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#112896 May 15, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
I will tell you what. Real Science is based upon scientific experiments that can be repeated over and over and over in a lab. One very simple example is water freezing at 0 degrees C.
Why don't you show me one experiment on evolution that can be demonstrated in a laboratory environment. Perhaps breeding single cell organisms to demonstrate isolation of characteristics without human input?
You can't do it because it is not observable science it is impossible to prove.
These are proven observations .

Struggle for existence - More individuals in a population are born each generation than will survive and reproduce.
Variation - Individuals within a population are variable. Some individuals have different characteristics than others.
Differential survival and reproduction - Individuals that have certain characteristics are better able to survive and reproduce than other individuals having different characteristics.
Inheritance - Some of the characteristics that influence an individual's survival and reproduction are heritable.
Time - Ample amounts of time are available to allow for change.
The Facts

Owensboro, KY

#112897 May 15, 2014
Advances in genetic sequencing are giving rise to a new era of scientific racism, despite decades of efforts to reverse attitudes used to justify the slave trade and Nazi theology, experts say.

New forms of discrimination, known as neoracism, are taking hold in scientific research, spreading the belief that races exist and are different in terms of biology, behavior and culture

Many distinguished scientists in the United States recognize that race itself is not a biological variable, but they still buy into the notion that shared ancestry can impart certain biological characteristics

http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics/new-...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#112898 May 15, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
I will tell you what. Real Science is based upon scientific experiments that can be repeated over and over and over in a lab. One very simple example is water freezing at 0 degrees C.
Why don't you show me one experiment on evolution that can be demonstrated in a laboratory environment. Perhaps breeding single cell organisms to demonstrate isolation of characteristics without human input?
You can't do it because it is not observable science it is impossible to prove.
Yes, real science is reproducible. No, it is not limited to the laboratory. And yet we can show you experiments done in the laboratory. The Lenski experiment is a perfect example:

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#112899 May 15, 2014

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#112900 May 16, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol, borrowing a phrase from ChristineM? Pretty pathetic.
Wrong, it is an English phrase,any one can use that.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#112901 May 16, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Do YOU think before you type? "Not all atheists are scientists"?! Gee, ya think?
Both ways.

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) 2 min wichita-rick 197,388
I Haven't Had____? In ages (Sep '12) 4 min wichita-rick 1,178
News Police arrest man nicknamed 'Butter' who dresse... 53 min wichita-rick 9
Any Word ! (Mar '11) 1 hr revilot2 5,148
Word Association (Mar '10) 1 hr wichita-rick 21,093
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 1 hr wichita-rick 19,757
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 1 hr Crazy Beautiful 8,824
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 6 hr Pernicious Snit 59,727
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 7 hr LaBeth 20,015
More from around the web