Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216624 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

#120602 Aug 21, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course there's lots of claims. There's this little thing called Christianity, you may have heard of it.
Is it ONLY Christian sources that claim there was a real and historical Jesus?
The Dude wrote:
Yes. When I was a kid I tried pushing my little cousin into the swimming pool to see if he could walk on water. Unfortunately my experiment failed.
And this is evidence that Jesus is not real and is a myth?
The Dude wrote:
I also came across a ripe fig tree once and tried killing it just by touching it. That failed too.
I tried talking to a donkey and a lizard, but it turns out that due to anatomical reasons they could not communicate with me using human language even if they could understand what I was saying. I had a little better luck with a parrot, but parrots aren't mentioned much in the Bible.
So it turns out at least some of what he said was either storytelling, or just BS.(shrug)
Oh.

I see.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120603 Aug 21, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Equality of what?
What two (or more) things are you comparing?
A wooden log could be of equal weight to a rock, but that doesn't indicate intelligence unless you happen to have evidence that either one or both of them were cut deliberately into size.
You have no business is this argument.

It is beyond you.

You have nothing of any relevance to contribute to it.

Go away.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120604 Aug 21, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Because he refuses to accept 2000 yo hearsay as evidence?
No.

But because he fails to acknowledge that all history is hearsay.

And also because he fails to acknowledge that all human "knowledge" is a rationalization.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120605 Aug 21, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
This is done all the time, they call it history.
I agree with you on that.

But if you expect THEM to admit that fact, you delude yourself.

They have no will to think fairly, else they would have applied the same principle used in scientific investigations to the question of the existence of God.

And if they did that; they would be compelled by logic to acknowledge that He is.

They settle for whatever line of thinking is convenient for them, then they use scientific method as an excuse for their biases.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120606 Aug 21, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
As I've said, since you admit to not listening, why should we care if you personally accept answers? What we have is successful scientific predictions based on that evidence you're incapable of refuting. That's why we're not simply offering opinions as you do.
.
Why are you then responding to my posts? You even respond to posts not directed to you.
.
I don't expect you to care your an atheist!
.
When are we going to see a new "kind"? That would be a good prediction.
.
When am I going to get data on how many mutations we are documenting each year in the human genome?
.
By the way evidence can be refuted but it is not necessary to convince others evolution is a "crock"
.
It's your conclusions I have a problem with.
.
This just came to me. If civilization were to suffer a catastrophe and 10,000 years from now someone dug up a pictures explaining the evolutionary path of hominids and another book of classic cars one could imagine one of them saying, look how this creature (cars) evolved over time.
.
Sounds silly, when we know this similarity is nothing but intelligent design.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120607 Aug 21, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you then responding to my posts? You even respond to posts not directed to you.
I have no idea what he/she thinks they demonstrates by doing so.

And his responses have been absurd to say the least.

The guy forms his conclusions on the falsehood of Jesus' existence, based on the fact that he shoved one of his relatives in a pool to see if they could walk on water.

He is psychotic.

They will let anyone into the academic circle these days.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120608 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
But because he fails to acknowledge that all history is hearsay.
And also because he fails to acknowledge that all human "knowledge" is a rationalization.
.
I would not generalize all history as hearsay, although much of it is. What I have a problem with is without evidence claiming the bible is hearsay. The best evidence we have is that the gospels are written from the perspective of the witnesses of Messiah. Even the internal evidence (as well as traditional evidence) is consistent with eyewitness testimony.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120609 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it ONLY Christian sources that claim there was a real and historical Jesus?
<quoted text>
And this is evidence that Jesus is not real and is a myth?
<quoted text>
Oh.
I see.
.
This represents the type of science he conducts.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120610 Aug 21, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I would not generalize all history as hearsay, although much of it is. What I have a problem with is without evidence claiming the bible is hearsay. The best evidence we have is that the gospels are written from the perspective of the witnesses of Messiah. Even the internal evidence (as well as traditional evidence) is consistent with eyewitness testimony.
You do know that using the source of the claim (The Bible) as proof of that claim's validity is called 'circular reasoning' and is complete idiocy... right?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120611 Aug 21, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it seems impossible to ME that if genes do not change, there is no frequency change.
Because, assume this (simplified) gene frequency in an animal species genome:
gene 1 - 5%
gene 2 - 15%
gene 3 - 23%
gene 4 - 16%
gene 5 - 32%
gene 6 - 9%
If the frequency changes, we will become something like this:
gene 1 - 4%
gene 2 - 16%
gene 3 - 28%
gene 4 - 12%
gene 5 - 26%
gene 6 - 8%
This implies that some animals MUST have LOST gene 1, gene 5 and gene 6 and some animals should have GAINED gene 2, gene 3 and gene 4.
Of course the % are not realistic but only to make the logical point.
.
<quoted text>
Well, it seems impossible to ME that if genes do not change, there is no frequency change.
.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and take the blame for poor communication.
.
If we have a variety of genes within a population (say eye colour) and a tyrant comes along and orders the execution of everyone who doesn't have blue eyes we will see a change in gene frequency, but not a change in the genes. An eye colour gene is still an eye colour gene. Only the frequency of non-blue eyed genes has changed. No new information has been added to the genome there is only a loss. Now if we were to see purple eyed people start to be born, I would suspect that there has been a change in the genome, but would I call it evolution? Probably not, there is no new structure. For evolution to be true, we must be able to add new structures to the organism, like specialized cells, For that microbe to be the parent of all living things some new structures had to have been formed. Am I incorrect in this statement?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120612 Aug 21, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I would not generalize all history as hearsay, although much of it is. What I have a problem with is without evidence claiming the bible is hearsay. The best evidence we have is that the gospels are written from the perspective of the witnesses of Messiah. Even the internal evidence (as well as traditional evidence) is consistent with eyewitness testimony.
It may be that all of it is not hearsay; but it is subjective regardless.

For an individual's account is limited to what he/she can and/or did perceive at a point in time.

So regardless of what is, we'll just have to take them at their word and see if what is present is consistent with what the person reported.

Nevertheless, I have been looking into historical accounts of Jesus and the validity of the concepts embodied in the Bible.

And up to this date I have not seen anything that cannot be justified nor is truly conflicting in the Bible nor have I seen where the accounts of Jesus are less credible than those of Julius Cesar.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120613 Aug 21, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
This represents the type of science he conducts.
It appears to be so.

... I only answer his posts when I am bored and cant find anything better to do at the moment...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120614 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you on that.
But if you expect THEM to admit that fact, you delude yourself.
They have no will to think fairly, else they would have applied the same principle used in scientific investigations to the question of the existence of God.
And if they did that; they would be compelled by logic to acknowledge that He is.
They settle for whatever line of thinking is convenient for them, then they use scientific method as an excuse for their biases.
What a load of crap. What makes you think none of us have used logic to determine the existence (or non-existence) of a god? What makes you think that none of us were raised as Christians? We don't think fairly because we don't agree with you? Because we expect more evidence than ancient stories written by who knows who? Get a grip.

We're not the one making excuses.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120615 Aug 21, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Why are you then responding to my posts? You even respond to posts not directed to you.
Public forum, bub. That's the way it is.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120616 Aug 21, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Well, it seems impossible to ME that if genes do not change, there is no frequency change.
.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and take the blame for poor communication.
.
If we have a variety of genes within a population (say eye colour) and a tyrant comes along and orders the execution of everyone who doesn't have blue eyes we will see a change in gene frequency, but not a change in the genes. An eye colour gene is still an eye colour gene. Only the frequency of non-blue eyed genes has changed. No new information has been added to the genome there is only a loss. Now if we were to see purple eyed people start to be born, I would suspect that there has been a change in the genome, but would I call it evolution? Probably not, there is no new structure. For evolution to be true, we must be able to add new structures to the organism, like specialized cells, For that microbe to be the parent of all living things some new structures had to have been formed. Am I incorrect in this statement?
Actually eye color is determined by more than one gene and the presence or absence of specific genes determine eye color. A few years back a study supported that the pure strain of blue eyes first appeared in Northern Europe about 10,000 years ago and every person alive today with pure blue eyes shows that specific gene sequence. People of other eye colors, including blue with brown flecks, show a different set of genes.

Actually there is a relatively small group of people who eye color is more toward violet than blue. If they start reproducing amongst themselves, you might very well see the allele frequency within the human population showing more and more violet eyes. I'm not aware of any genetic studies done on those folks, it might be interesting to study their DNA.

Another change you might do a little homework on is the ability to digest milk. Again, Northern European area allele frequency change. Some folks cannot digest milk past a certain age, but think of a survival advantage milk digestion in a cold region of the world with a limited growing season might offer.

You inability to accept evolution being true has nothing to do with it being true. Science works whether you believe in it or not. Can't say the same for religion. If you disagree go ask Odin or Zues :-)

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120617 Aug 21, 2014
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know that using the source of the claim (The Bible) as proof of that claim's validity is called 'circular reasoning' and is complete idiocy... right?
There is no need for us to try to use the bible to prove the Bible... there are enough natural processes and historical accounts to demonstrate what we claim.

And for the record, circular reasoning is NOT invalid as a logical form. Circular reasoning is deemed negligible at times because it represents a redundancy; a forgone conclusion.

It is only by a circular reasoning that we can dispense with the issue of infinite regress...

Because for ANY description of how or what; an infinite number of hows, whats and whys can follow...

It is only possible to arrive at a conclusion by deciding that "a thing is what it is because it is what it is and not anything else".

How do you think the reliance on "empirical evidence" is justified?

For every piece of evidence there is an infinite number of whys... why does that prove that..? why does that prove that that proves that..? why does that prove that that prove that that proves that..?

It is by a circular logic that we are able to say this suggests that...

"Justified beliefs are all evidentially supported by other beliefs, but an infinite set of beliefs is not generated, because the chains of evidential support among beliefs is allowed to move in a circle." [Evidentialism, Wikipedia.com ]

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120618 Aug 21, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of crap. What makes you think none of us have used logic to determine the existence (or non-existence) of a god?
Because truth embodies logic; so if you did, you would identify His influence through "The Spirit of Truth" (Book of St. John).
MikeF wrote:
What makes you think that none of us were raised as Christians?
Because if you were, you would know what God means, and you could not justify rejecting claims of his existence nor actions.
MikeF wrote:
We don't think fairly because we don't agree with you?
No.

You dont think fairly because you dont apply your concepts of investigation the same way for ALL subjects.

You fail to apply the same methods of thougth and investigation as soon as you approach God for no apparent reason than the fact that it is God who you are dealing with.
MikeF wrote:
Because we expect more evidence than ancient stories written by who knows who? Get a grip.
We're not the one making excuses.
Is that your excuse... for not being able to appreciate the influence of the attributes associated with God in nature?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120619 Aug 21, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis1:24
Then God said: Let the earth bring forth every kind of living creature:
Did he have to include cockroaches?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120620 Aug 21, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
... Science works whether you believe in it or not...
Reality is what it is; regardless of what science describes it as...

We know that there is something beyond what science can measure and we know that that thing is the essence of all things that came after it.

Your Odin and Zeus are of no significance here.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120621 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Because truth embodies logic; so if you did, you would identify His influence through "The Spirit of Truth" (Book of St. John).
A book is only evidence of the author's opinions. Nothing more.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Because if you were, you would know what God means, and you could not justify rejecting claims of his existence nor actions.
I know what it means, arrogant one. Nor have I rejected claims of his existence. I allow for the possibility. But feel free to jump to unwarranted conclusions.

What I do reject is that bi-polar nutcase of the Old Testament and anything based on it.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
No.
You dont think fairly because you dont apply your concepts of investigation the same way for ALL subjects.
I have and I do. You included.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
You fail to apply the same methods of thougth and investigation as soon as you approach God for no apparent reason than the fact that it is God who you are dealing with.
Total bullshit. Is that the best you can do?
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Is that your excuse... for not being able to appreciate the influence of the attributes associated with God in nature?
I make no excuses. Unlike you who have to resort to criticizing another s logic, thought process or conclusions. And THAT is your excuse because you can't support your beliefs with anything more than you beliefs and because you can't convince another to believe as you.

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
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 min Denny CranesPlace 67,097
News Cleveland 53 mins ago 8:55 p.m.Man charged with... 27 min Christine 1
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 29 min Hoosier Hillbilly 11,129
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 36 min whatimeisit 5,780
Benghazi (Oct '15) 38 min Hoosier Hillbilly 107
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 40 min Hoosier Hillbilly 37,071
2words into 2new words (May '12) 42 min whatimeisit 6,762
News Trump's bizarre claim that the Clinton email co... 1 hr Bye Bye 979
All Christmas Carols/Songs and Quotes.. 1 hr Grace Nerissa 44
News Church fined $12,000 for helping homeless new 1 hr Spotted Girl 41
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr avon5735 206,908
More from around the web