Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222191 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

#120891 Aug 27, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you combat ignorance and apathy?
I don't know and I don't care.
I promised myself that one of these days I'll stop procrastinating.
FREE SERVANT

United States

#120892 Aug 27, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I promised myself that one of these days I'll stop procrastinating.
Did you promise yourself to quit promising yourself?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120893 Aug 27, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Did you promise yourself to quit promising yourself?
Some day.
FREE SERVANT

United States

#120894 Aug 27, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Some day.
When someday comes I guess?

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120895 Aug 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
tactic 44,....that's where you say there's no evidence of a creator of life ,..then you say there's evidence that life created itself,...uh none!
By the way,..do you believe the universe created itself , then created life?
You are the one postulating a creator of life, therefore it is you who have to pony up the evidence -- which you have failed to do. Don't blame me for your failures. You want your religion taught in science class, you get to play by the very simple rules of science. Not my problem.

As for evidence of how life started ... there is evidence. That's why we study to formulate explanations based on the evidence. Have we finished, no. There are several hypotheses of how life started on Earth, scientific hypotheses, all of which have some evidence, but none of them have become the Theory of Abiogenesis. There remains much work to be dome. Your religious 'answer' would stop all work, which is certainly not how we learn things.

What I believe has little bearing on science. Science works whether you believe in it or not. The current evidence shows the Universe started with the, not aptly named,'Big Bang', which if I remember was hung on it as a pejorative, but it stuck. It matches the available evidence, whereas your idea that the universe started with the actions of one deity or another has no evidence at all.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120896 Aug 27, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>You are the one postulating a creator of life, therefore it is you who have to pony up the evidence -- which you have failed to do. Don't blame me for your failures. You want your religion taught in science class, you get to play by the very simple rules of science. Not my problem.
As for evidence of how life started ... there is evidence. That's why we study to formulate explanations based on the evidence. Have we finished, no. There are several hypotheses of how life started on Earth, scientific hypotheses, all of which have some evidence, but none of them have become the Theory of Abiogenesis. There remains much work to be dome. Your religious 'answer' would stop all work, which is certainly not how we learn things.
What I believe has little bearing on science. Science works whether you believe in it or not. The current evidence shows the Universe started with the, not aptly named,'Big Bang', which if I remember was hung on it as a pejorative, but it stuck. It matches the available evidence, whereas your idea that the universe started with the actions of one deity or another has no evidence at all.
Yeah, it was Fred "Junkyard 747" Hoyle that came up with Big Bang.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#120897 Aug 27, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I promised myself that one of these days I'll stop procrastinating.
Yeah, I too have made that promise often enough.

There are a lot of comedians on this forum and you guys are pretty funny too.
FREE SERVANT

United States

#120898 Aug 27, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol. I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.
That's like the little boy that wanted to shave his head to become a skin head. His father told him to give up on that idea and he might get a car for his 16th birthday. The boy replied that the Buddha had a shaved head! The father then retorted, YES but he also walked all of his life...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120899 Aug 27, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, I too have made that promise often enough.
There are a lot of comedians on this forum and you guys are pretty funny too.
:-\

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120900 Aug 27, 2014
inbred Genius wrote:
so are you guys suggesting that God did not create the earth, and rested on the 7th day?
Are you suggesting that "he" did?

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#120901 Aug 27, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Are you suggesting that "he" did?
that was the rumor I learned at vacation bible school, about 60 years ago....do the new history books change that too?

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120902 Aug 27, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, it was Fred "Junkyard 747" Hoyle that came up with Big Bang.
That's right, he did. Didn't the DI recently re-christen Hoyle as an ID supporter, even though he was more of a Panspermia than anything else. Maybe it wasn't Hoyle, they've re-christened so many people it's hard to keep track. They're worse than the Mormons.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120903 Aug 27, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>That's right, he did. Didn't the DI recently re-christen Hoyle as an ID supporter, even though he was more of a Panspermia than anything else. Maybe it wasn't Hoyle, they've re-christened so many people it's hard to keep track. They're worse than the Mormons.
Funny.

Don't pay much attention to what the DI is up to but it would surprise me that they would abscond with a dead guy.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120905 Aug 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA carries information, where did it come from?
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

The theory of evolution also does not rely on the Big Bang.

To what "information" are you referring?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120906 Aug 27, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh.
So what about Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, the Babylonian Talmud, Lucian and the rest; even the ones yet to be discovered?
So we ask for CONTEMPORARY evidence and you give us all the usual suspects who came AFTER Josephus.

BWAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Told ya I'd laugh my booobs off. EPIC FAIL!

Besides which even if any of these did prove the existence of aforementioned Jewish preacher that still doesn't show that he was magic.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120907 Aug 27, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Either heads or tails, but nobody knows yet. Therefore be open to the possibility (of head) until the coin is tossed and lands...
<quoted text>
Tail is the most rational position to take?
Why?
How?
When did I say tails? I said the coin was still up in the air.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
If I provided it would you indeed accept it?
Would it pass the scientific method? If so, then yes.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Tell me what you are looking for as evidence; for while you reject what I offer as evidence, you must have knowledge of the subject so that you can justify you rejection.
I have no knowledge of this "God concept" since it has not yet been discovered. But what I DO know is that what I'm looking for must pass the scientific method. If this cannot be provided then my rejection is justified.

Also I do not HAVE to do YOUR homework for you. So instead of being just a lazyazz fundie just like every other fundie then why not just share your "Divine knowledge" with the world and Ussher in (see wot I did there) a new era of amazing scientific discovery because apparently you know something that the rest of us are all missing.

You've had over 3,000 years.

Take your time.

And you will.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120908 Aug 27, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
That is irrelevant to the discussion; we are discussing the implications of the words of JESUS; or so attributed to him.
Actually I'd say the factual accuracy of the Bible would be VERY relevant.

Not all that surprised to see a fundie claim otherwise though.(shrug)
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
You do.
I dont.
Then there's no reason for us to consider the Bible to have any bearing on reality since you freely admit to cherry-picking whatever you like. So if the Bible goes then Jesus can go right along with it.

However if you have evidence that the existence of some preacher called Jesus somehow really does demonstrate the existence of this "God" thingumawotsit exists then feel free to present it.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion.
Indeed.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
So if the idea of evidence that cannot be verified by scientific method has no meaning; can all evidence be verified by scientific method?
Yes. I look forward to you presenting more excuses as to why you can't present what you need to in order to be taken seriously.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120909 Aug 27, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no conceptions of any magical wizards of any race in my mind.
You do.
Then as I said you need to provide better definitions. Since the God of the Bible is an invisible magic Jew wizard, according to the Bible.

But I guess that doesn't matter since you said the Bible doesn't matter anyway.(shrug)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120910 Aug 27, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I did, of course. Didn't think I had the talent, huh?
I don't think of god as "him". I think of "god" as a primordial energy. Of course it is only supposition.
Then "God" need not necessarily be intelligent, and could easily be a poetic metaphor for whatever physics was responsible for the universe. Which is nice and all, but scientifically useless.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120911 Aug 27, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right. Calling abiogenesis "fools gold" is definitely my opinion. But when abiogenesis reveals molecules with a survival instinct, I'm willing to reconsider.
Since life does not require a survival instinct your opinion is irrelevant.

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 a_visitor 221,984
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 3 min tiger_-_dad 150,337
Poll What Ever Happened To SLACK/L.I.M.????? (Mar '13) 5 min a_visitor 50
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 6 min Dr S Niper 25,103
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 19 min Bovenzi13 16,060
News Drunk woman bites man's fishing line while swim... 32 min a_visitor 1
What's going on with the cigarettes????? 35 min a_visitor 1
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 1 hr anonuhmuss 2,985
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr Boink face 5,421
Coffee with Pie! (Sep '08) 7 hr Sublime1 35,403
More from around the web