Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209801 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.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114558 Jun 17, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about? Your quote points out that theists will believe any nonsense as long as you can say "God did it".
No.

My quote points out that the dispositions of scientific thinkers today as it relates to God are motivated by philosophy and personal intent; not specifically the will to improve science.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114559 Jun 17, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post contradicts itself again. God is a man made concept. As you said, God is s a fictitious man made myth.
We made 1 + 1 = 2 also; is that a myth?
Subduction Zone wrote:
Darwin observed the laws of nature and put them down on paper. He did not advocate the breaking of any natural laws.
Your post contradicts itself again. Evolution is a man made concept. As you said, evolution is s a fictitious man made myth.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#114560 Jun 18, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
HOG
The evolutionist has two primary agendas
1. Removing Judeo Christian thought from planet Earth by any means necessary
2. Gaining credibility for their scientific studies so they can get a University Grant for research.
Those are powerful motivations for religious and economic gain.
Yeah, except neither of those is remotely true. Plenty of people that support Evolution are Christians and see no conflict between Evolution and Christianity. So 1 is patently false.

As to 2, no one simply gets University grants simply for supporting Evolution. They get grants to research very specific things. Even if Evolution is 100% overturned and replaced with a new theory, science would still continue, grants would still continue, scientists and researchers would still be able to get grants. There is absolutely no financial incentive to support Evolution simply for the sake of supporting Evolution.

There is however, a HUGE financial and personal incentive to reverse Evolution if such evidence existed. Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. If it were to be overturned and replaced with a new theory it would be the most incredible achievement in biology since the cure for smallpox. Nobel Prizes, book deals, foundations, university chairs and more would be showered upon the person or persons responsible. If evidence to overturn Evolution existed, scientists would not only NOT suppress it, they would fight each other Thunderdome style to be the first to present it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114561 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
My quote points out that the dispositions of scientific thinkers today as it relates to God are motivated by philosophy and personal intent; not specifically the will to improve science.
First off if you want to claim that this God thingy exists you are going to need some evidence for it. Second it looks like you know nothing of what scientific people are thinking. Most of them are still interested in increasing man's knowledge.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114562 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
We made 1 + 1 = 2 also; is that a myth?
<quoted text>
Your post contradicts itself again. Evolution is a man made concept. As you said, evolution is s a fictitious man made myth.
We can observe that 1 + 1 = 2 in many different ways.

There are no objective observations of God. Now evolution is a man made concept. Not all man made concepts are myths. Evolution can also be observed in many different ways. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. As I said you know nothing of science or scientists. What evidence do you have that evolution is wrong?

Try not to make me laugh when you respond.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#114563 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
My quote points out that the dispositions of scientific thinkers today as it relates to God are motivated by philosophy and personal intent; not specifically the will to improve science.
Wanting to keep religious beliefs out of scientific inquiry is not the same as removing religious beliefs from the world. As we have said repeatedly, over and over and over again, you are completely free to believe in the religion of your choice, to believe in the philosophy of your choice, to believe in the political ideology of your choice, and so on. All scientists want to do is keep those things out of science.

If you like to quote things so much, here is a quote for you:

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."

The Clergy Letter, signed by over 12,000 Christian clergy.
deutscher Stolz

Bissendorf, Germany

#114564 Jun 18, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to mention that the American manufacturing and food processing industries lead the way via the Berlin Airlift and our government implemented the Marshall Plan, BOTH of which were instrumental in the survival of German citizens, and in the economic and cultural recovery of Germany immediately following WWII.
The Marshall plan has nothing to do with this.

Look at this
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/l...

It seems that you need a lesson in history and economy. The money of the Marshall Plan was a joke.
Of course you learn in school that you - who destroyed Europe - saved Europe.
deutscher Stolz

Bissendorf, Germany

#114565 Jun 18, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the greedy Americans that supply more exports to Germany than any other country in Europe? The reason I don't take the criticisms of Europeans very seriously is that they are usually doing it while in some way consuming American consumer or manufactured goods. So feel free to say whatever you wish about America. You certainly paid for the privilege.
You should give us all of your exports with no costs for 50 years. Then we would be even with you.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#114566 Jun 18, 2014
This is a good read. Long but good.

Why We Fight: How Public Schools Cause Social Conflict

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs...

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#114568 Jun 18, 2014
replaytime wrote:
This is a good read. Long but good.
Why We Fight: How Public Schools Cause Social Conflict
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs...
Hmmm
Too bad.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#114569 Jun 18, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I stand corrected. I repeat, reproduction is a process of creation , while evolution is not. Evolution can never function independently without passing through the creation process. I don' nt care what you think.
Ahh you mean the very initial spark of evolution, you do not mean the continuing results of that evolution, thank you for making that clear.

As to the initial spark, it is true that science does not know the precise details and has been unable to devote a billion years or so to research but that does not mean you have to guess. Is it not enough to say “we don’t know, we may never know but at least we are trying to find out” as opposed to your approach of “we don’t know so clearly we must guess that my god dun it wiv magic and those trying to find out are always wriong eben if the succeed in finding the truth”.

First that’s truth, small t, not Truth, capital T, as used by christians to denote belief rather than fact

And secondly, nope, not any of the 2400+ other creator gods that have been worshipped throughout recorded history but your own particular god construct?
THE LONE WORKER

Tucker, GA

#114570 Jun 18, 2014
Everything in life has repetitive rhythms related to their own kinds. Variety is not only the spice of life, it is essential for life to work. There had to have been variety from the beginning for life to thrive on Earth. Instructions were given in patterns to follow for each kind.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114571 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
"Thought experiments have been used in a variety of fields, including philosophy, law, PHYSICS, and mathematics." [wikipedia.com]
*raises one eyebrow and exhales cigarette smoke slowly*
And, as I said, any thought experiment has to be backed up later by an actual experiment.

In practice, thought experiments are typically used to test the consistency of the ideas in a model or to clarify intuition. But they are only speculation until actually verified by observations. A thought experiment is not, in itself, a proof of any concept.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114572 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Before you get to "If you refer to the fact of God's existence then unfortunately you have yet to demonstrate that": deal with:
1. Is looking for evidence that someone said something, the same as looking for evidence that a vehicle has passed a particular spot?
The techniques are different, certainly.
2. Do words have the same effects as tire tracks?
No, but they can be recorded, for example.
3. Do words leave impressions on the ground like tire tracks?
No, but they do leave other traces.
4. Do we not know that when looking for evidence of things, it is the nature of the thing that determines how that thing will/can be investigated?
Yes, of course. How something interacts will determine how it is detected.
I ahve structured them such that a simple yes/no will be sufficient.
What you seem to fail to realize is that words alone are never enough to prove something about reality. Words are used by people to communicate and can communicate falsehoods just as easily as truths. Now, when the communicated idea is prosaic and common, there is often no reason to doubt what someone says (depending on experience, of course). But when something is extraordinary, then the words should be taken with a grain of salt and the topic investigated by other means.

Now, how do you proposed to detect whatever deity you are proposing? Because it is *your* burden of proof to show the existence of something if you claim it exists. Without even a theoretical means of detection, the existence is a non-sense statement.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#114573 Jun 18, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
In America are more Nazis than in Germany.
There more of everything in America. 9.83 million km2 vs your 357,021 km2 and about 4 times your population.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114574 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay.
So are we and our intelligence separate from the universe?
Is our intelligence the product of natural forces in nature, or outside/beyond of nature?
Our intelligence, such as it is, is a product of natural forces. So, in that sense, the universe is capable of producing intelligence. That does not mean the universe itself is intelligent, however.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#114575 Jun 18, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't talk like them. I don't want to invade other countries. I just want to protect my country from stupid greedy Americans. You have already exploited my country twice.
As we would say "Harte Scheiße".

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114576 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay.
Does a scientist who creates an artificially intelligent system show signs of being intelligent?
The scientist was previously known to show intelligence. Creating the AI system isn't any further proof of that.

And, you have yet to show there *was* a scientist that created the life in the universe.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114577 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Does the universe have the capacity to behave intelligently or demonstrate elements of behavior similar to those observable in intelligent behavior?
And the answer is a clear NO.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#114578 Jun 18, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Well seeing as we were apparantly the cause of WWII I guess that isn't much of an argument. We, and the Brits I guess, also caused the Holocaust, the camps and the Final Solution while the poor Germans looks on helplessly, powerless to stop us. Then we got in our time machines, killed Christ, enslaved the Jews in Egypt, murdered the dinosaurs, and caused the ice age. Killing the dodos was just bad driving on the way back.
And the Trabant. Must be our fault too.

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
last word/first word. (Apr '12) 7 min andet1987 6,880
True False Game (Jun '11) 10 min TheJerseyDevil 12,734
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 15 min pickin 200,959
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) (Dec '14) 17 min TheJerseyDevil 4,407
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 19 min Grace fallen 438
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 23 min SUG here 9,295
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 24 min SUG here 4,070
2words into 2new words (May '12) 42 min Sharlene45 5,111
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 hr TheJerseyDevil 9,113
Philly grey poster hangout 1 hr Spotted Girl 58
News Clinton's name spelled wrong on Hofstra Univers... 2 hr Mitts Gold Plated... 67
More from around the web