Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 168920 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.

The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118760 Jul 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
So what caused natural selection?
What did natural selection evolve from?
Warning! Goalpost moving detected!
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118761 Jul 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Is evidence capable of proving anything with absolute certainty?
Even when all the evidence suggests that a criminal is guilty of charges laid against him; is it not possible to argue that the evidence is actually suggesting something else?
Does evidence directly connecting a subject to any event or process make it impossible assume that the evidence points to something contrary?
NO AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE CAN CONVINCE ANYONE WHO CHOOSES NOT TO BELIEVE.
So stop pretending as if the failure to present evidence is the main reason for you so called skepticism (if it can be called that).
Actually yes, evidence CAN point to conclusions which are contrary to some claims.

Such as creationism arguing for a young Earth (just one example).

They can CLAIM it's just an "interpretation" of the evidence which is "just as valid" until they're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that they are plain wrong.(shrug)

So stop pretending as if a failure to present evidence for their claims is not valid reason for skepticism. And stop pretending that our not accepting your BS at face value is OUR failure.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118762 Jul 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with that.
But it is more effective to search for a nail with a metal detector than with a stethoscope; therefore we know that the nature of the thing being examined determines how the thing must be investigated.
It is the subject which determines what is evidence of it (the subject).
So if I one wants to test that God exists; one MUST test for the attributes of God as suggested by the nature of (a) God.
If the test for the attributes gives data which suggests the claims are false; then the conclusion is that:
THE SUGGESTED ATTRIBUTES ARE NOT THOSE OF GOD, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE IS NO GOD.
Describe the nature of the God for which there is no evidence, or shut the f**k up.
And we all agree that there is no invisible jewish wizard outside of your fantasies.
I don't know of any nature for God.

Apparently neither does anyone else.

So stop trying to get us to do YOUR homework and come up with your OWN hypotheses or shut the f ck up. Don't blame us just because you got zippo in the way of evidence.(shrug)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118763 Jul 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
So how did you jump from "we must establish the nature of God" to "But since we cant test for God"?
What priciple associated with God cant you test for; what principle identified by God himself/itself/herself?
How do we KNOW that God does not exist?
Lack of evidence?
LOL!
...or Should I say "OINK!"?
I don't know, nor care if God exists either way. If it does then you can provide evidence. If you can't there's no reason to presume it should. That doesn't necessarily mean that it definitely doesn't exist. But then it doesn't mean that it does either.

Besides, isn't OINK all you say anyway?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118764 Jul 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
But if (the) evidence is not proof; what is its function?
Evidence is requested by subjects who are interested in either one of two outcomes (true/false).
Which outcome are you interested in?
<quoted text>
Which particular God are you referring to; the God that you KNOW?
Your prejudice stinks so bad, I can smell it from here.
If you have not observed any objective evidence for God, it suggests that the God does not demonstrate those characteristics or qualities.
IT DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE PARTICULAR GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
Thats logic.
<quoted text>
Then go f**k yourself!
We as Christians hold that Jesus has the most accurate description of the nature of God.
So if you dont care what he says; you have no business in any conversations which involve what he said.
<quoted text>
DO YOU KNOW WHAT "ADAM" AND "EVE" MEAN IN THE CONTEXT THE BIBLE USES THEM IN?
Go f**k yourself with that bottle-neck.
Do you know what Adam and Eve meant in the context of the Bible?

Were they real people or not?

If so, present evidence of that bottleneck, along with an explanation of how humanity survived.

If not, present the actual context of what the story meant and explain how it's more relevant to reality than say, Little Red Riding Hood.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118765 Jul 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, I dont know...
Lets see:
Is reality dependent on what we think it is or measure it to be?
If a tree falls when there is no one around; does it still make a sound while falling?
<quoted text>
While your remark is such, you have agreed that such data, info and "facts" are of a subjective nature.
As such... nag about something else. Like why you insist on being an agnostic pu$$y-hole or an atheist khunt.
Then stop using your computer.

You "khunt".(shrug)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118766 Jul 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I actually do know of principles: 1+2 = 3.
<quoted text>
Mankind daily, momentarily experiences the influences of God; thus we can describe Gods existence to that degree.
Will you never arrive at that point?
Yup, 1+2 = 3. Therefore God. Can't beat that logic.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118767 Jul 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
And where did those things come from?
What caused them?
Where/what did they evolve from?
How is that relevant? Other than the fact you're smashing yourself headlong into infinite regression fallacy, then claiming that your position is exempt from that?

Because let's face it - we give you an answer to something you demand then you'll move the goalposts back. We tell you how evolution works then you move to abiogenesis. If we can give you an explanation there you move back to how did the Earth start. If we can give you an explanation there then you go back to the beginning of the universe. If we provide an explanation you ask what came before that. And so on and so forth until we eventually reach a point where we can only say "We don't know yet" so you can jump up and say "HA! GODDIDIT!!!"

Fine.

Evidence?

(sound of crickets chirping)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118768 Jul 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesnt support the stance that there is no God neither.
Which brings us to the point I have been waiting to get to:
How do you justify agnosticism/atheism; with evidence?
Is it logic that compels agnosticism and/or atheism?
And by the same token what justifies agnosticism or unbelief in fairies?

Is not the lack of evidence enough? Or are all baseless claims just as valid?

I don't have proof positive that ancient aliens didn't come to Earth and build the pyramids therefore space aliens made the pyramids.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118769 Jul 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
WE are claiming there is a God. YOU are not.
The burden of disproof is on YOU.
Then the burden of disproof of space aliens is on you. Otherwise you believe space aliens have visited Earth.

Your rules.(shrug)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118770 Jul 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence is not the problem, your personal dispositions are.
...just because we DONT have evidence that Mr. A killed Mr.B, doesnt mean he didnt do it nor was not involved. And just because you arrive to see Mr. A pulling a knife from the dead body of Mr. B doesnt mean Mr. A killed him...
So even after all the evidence is presented; it is YOU that decide what you are willing to believe.
It is YOU that decide what will convince you.
Nice analogy.

However from your analogy there would at least be a place to start with for investigation. For example if the time of death coincided with the observation of Mr A pulling the knife out of Mr B or not. Plus the ability to ask Mr A or any of his or Mr B's associates if a Mr C happened to be anywhere by at the time.

Pity you can't come anywhere CLOSE to providing us with a similar avenue of investigation for "God"...
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118771 Jul 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
There!
I rest my case.
* PS: WHEN I USE ALL CAPS, I AM NOT INDICATING THAT I AM SHOUTING.
WHEN I SIGNIFY SHOUTING I USE EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!!
OKAY.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118772 Jul 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
So when you make a claim and say that it is up to others to present evidence of the contrary should they choose to reject your claim; what do you call that?
If I claimed that evolution is not a fact; would you search for evidence that it is not and present it to me, or would you send me to do my own work.
To prove one thing, is to disprove another (in some if not all cases).
So why differentiate?
Are you sure you know what logic and reasoning even mean?
Except you can't prove a negative. You can only point out that there is a lack of evidence for something. You CAN point to lots of reasons to demonstrate that something more than likely is NOT there to the point where it would be unreasonable to claim that something IS there, however when your claims involve invisible deities that exist beyond the boundaries of the observable universe itself it gets a little tricky.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118773 Jul 21, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
No problem 99%(maybe even 100%) of mutations are not favorable (meaning do not lead to a benefit to the species), deal with the crux of the argument.
We already did.

WEEKS ago.

And that was just you, never mind all the years we've done that for all the other fundies in the past.

Reality doesn't change to the way you want it to be just because you ignore evidence.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118774 Jul 21, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
.messianic114 wrote:
Can you reference a post where I have lied?
.
In every single post you have shown dishonesty. If you understood evolution at all in the slightest you wouldn't have demanded we provide you with evidence of a violation of nested hiererachies. But since you did, the only rational conclusion is that you are either lying, or utterly ignorant of the subject. In which case you would still be being dishonest by making baseless assertions of evolution's alleged falsity.
.
I take it then all the posts I have made with lies in them you couldn't list one!
.
I suppose also that if one disagrees with the conclusions of science that makes one a liar?
No, it's your inability to deal with our posts and constant repetition of fallacies already addressed which makes you a liar.

For example, the position you hold which makes evidence redundant.

Remember, God is watching you...
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118775 Jul 21, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I am waiting for evidence that favorable mutations occur before I would make any such statement.
.
We were told that a moth in England evolved to change from predominately white to black. As is turned out this was not a mutation as the position reversed itself in about 30 years. This tells us that the genes for white and black were present in the population all the time.
.
Even if you were to show that a favorable mutation has occurred, which I would say is impossible as we cannot isolate that change to one person, this would not prove that a change great enough to make a change from one kind to another will occur.
.
Even with intelligent design (genetic engineering) have we ever observed a change from one kind to another?
Your first sentence here for example - a lie.

Keep dodging, Messy.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118776 Jul 21, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
If evolution is the result of random processes, why couldn't this occur? In our current culture where the weak are protected and allowed to pass on their genes to others, is moving in reverse direction impossible?
.
Evolution is random?

Since when?

Oh wait - Messy's just beating up his straw-man again.(yawn)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118777 Jul 21, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You are welcome.
Chuck, your sarcasm detector needs adjusting.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118778 Jul 21, 2014
Drgunzet wrote:
<quoted text>
In Cambodia, the more you rape, the more you spread your genes out. Do a google and see the rampant and blatant rapes going on in Cambodia.
During the Khmer Rouges regime from 1975 - 1978, the Khmer Rouges chiefs and sons murdered all intellectuals, anyone who wore eye glasses. Two million out of 7 seven million Cambodian died. Then they raped the women to bear their children. As the result, the Khmer race now a day is so troubling with extremely low learning aptitude, high rape rate, extremely high murder rate. Just go to their forums, the Khmer races openly talk about chopping other races' heads off and incite wars.
Thanks for informing us all that you're posting in the wrong forum. If we WANTED to be posting in the meth thread we would have gone there already.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118779 Jul 21, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
The ability to process lactose is a relatively recent mutation.
.
This is like saying cancer is recent, because we didn't record the data earlier. How do you know this wasn't termed colic?
.
Also the loss of ability is not supporting evolution.
.
<quoted text>
I could give you a link that explains how Nylonaise is the result of a recent positive mutation.
.
Are you going to be able to show that the bacteria didn't have the ability to metabolize nylon prior to the discovery?
What testing was done on the bacteria prior to its discovery?
.
<quoted text>
I give you the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia. Of course the people most prone to sickle cell anemia have mostly passed away making it overall a positive mutation.
.
How could a mutation that has caused most of those who have it be considered a positive mutation?
.
<quoted text>
Of course creatards will persist in not understanding.
.
Its not a persistence in not understanding it is questioning the conclusions and testing to show that these things actually happen. So far you haven't shown any testing so the methods can be critically analysed.
.
Answer this one question. How could the12 million genetic changes needed to distinguish a chimpanzee from a human happened in only 6 million years?
Why are you asking for evidence for which you have no interest?

Why are you still lying?

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
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 3 min Old Sam 6,025
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 7 min Old Sam 5,165
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 8 min Old Sam 4,786
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 8 min Old Sam 5,671
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 20 min wichita-rick 165,409
News Florida woman shoots at man trying to take mango 28 min Christsharians on... 7
motorcycle traveling stories 34 min Mega Monster 1,245
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Geno 41,398
God's getting Upset with US!!! 2 hr Mister_ E 53
News Teen Leads Mob In Ransacking Of Georgia Walmart 3 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 45
More from around the web