Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221490 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121206 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree with you, I have never held up the bible in this debate. The evolutionist's speak of the bible far, far more than ever I have. The difference in us is I don't cloak my beliefs in pseudo science, and then claim those who don't agree with their beliefs as ignorant, you've seen it.The stop looking argument is their strawman .
You don't have to hold up the Bible if your ideas clearly come from there.

We are not as foolish as you are. You might fool yourself, but you won't fool others.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121207 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Now , here we are. You once again , with your brethren . claiming that there is evidence that life self assembled , then made the leap from dead to alive. You , me and the others on here read the same articles, google the same information, I see an idea that hits a brick wall, and has no empirical evidence that it has ever been breached . You on the other hand have FAITH that it has been , which one of us on this issue is driven by the evidence , and who is driven by faith?
That is because you do not understand what is and what is not evidence.

And how has the work on abiogenesis ever hit a brick wall?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121208 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain the law of biogenesis?
The universe is made of matter, ergo energy, which cannot be created no destroyed, from what I've read. Once there was no universe,, where did the energy come from?


Technically the total energy of the universe is zero. Therefore no laws are broken if it made from nothing.

Since: Oct 08

Avondale Estates, GA

#121209 Aug 28, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text> Let's see ... so what you are saying is that you should believe because it MIGHT be true. Why risk it.
Hmmm ... so if it is true, you are going to stand at the Pearly Gates and tell St Peter that you only believed on the chance one of the various religious nut-jobs might be right. Yea, that will get you in the gates (Not!)
While you are busy with that, Jesus and I will be sharing a few beers looking down on the Earth laughing at ... people like you! At least the people who actually believe have some level of integrity. They'll at least have a chance at making it through. You, not so much.
so you're passing judgement on me, based on a couple of topix posts? Judge not, lest ye be judged....besides, you look like a h omo, do you think h omos will be welcomed into the kingdom of God?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121210 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh ! the liar,liar pants on fire defense!....
I'm ruined!
You really need to publish your work , because no one seem's to know but you?
Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say everything you say is true.
What do you have ?Life, no, unless you believe all the empirical is wrong?
Because that's all you have a belief
FIRST OF ALL: you are a liar.
Because there IS substantial evidence for a abiogenetic pathway of life.
And you are a DECEITFUL LIAR because you ignored my previous posts and all those from Polymath and others too, just doing what all creationists do when they suspect facts miles around: they shut their eyes, close their ears and start reciting "la, la, la".

You also are a COWARD because you DARE not to address them, Not all those previous ones by me and Polymath but EVEN AGAIN this very last ones by me.

Your post is AGAIN unsubstantial and hollow. They contain NOTHING.
They address NOTHING. They ass well could have addressed the latest news on dachshund barking in animal shelters.

How dare you to exhibit yourself in this way. Embarrassing.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121211 Aug 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is true, and I have not claimed more than that.
you just did again, see below
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>And there you are wrong. You have misused the term theory again. Theories are supported by massive amounts of evidence. There are several lines of evidence supporting the Big Bang theory. There is evidence, not as much but still scientific evidence supporting abiogenesis. There is no scientific evidence supporting the claims of creationists.
again you claim more that you say you don't
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>That is true. But not knowing everything does not mean that we cannot know somethings. And again here creationists are incredibly dishonest since they do not have any evidence for their beliefs yet they will claim to "know" that the Earth was created.
but knowing something does not mean you know everything as you think it does.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>And again, demonstrably wrong. Evolution is as proven as gravity. The only theory out there is the theory of evolution. It seems that you do not know what a theory is. A theory is an explanation of observed phenomena that is very well supported by scientific evidence. Creationists do not even have a testable hypothesis of creation. Remember a testable hypothesis or even theory does not have to reproduce the original event. It only has to explain how that event led to what we observe today. Creationist cannot even pass that relatively low bar.
again the BS gravity argument. which one could say i predicted that one to come up,,,again.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>There is always more to learn. But we know that dropping a hundred pound weight from chest high onto bare feet is a very bad idea. We also know that live evolved. What we are unsure of are some of the details of the path that evolution followed and quite a few of the details of abiogenesis, which is why it is still a hypothesis.
what if you dropped that hundred pound weight while bring in the milky way. not the same effect is it?

you are the same as turkaboy. your argument is not about science or evolution. your argument is about god period and that is what makes your argument pointless and bad. you could not accept if science said in 15 years said it was god and that is that. you would declare war on science. which shows your argument is against god, not about science.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121212 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
..........and none of this produces life,...that was what this thing was about wasn't it, pathways ,molecules,, RNA,......nothing.
Oh you left out the main ingredient
FAITH!.........now it works!
AGAIN nothing substantial.
Go figure with your terrible crap and tattle.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121213 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha,Ha,Ha,....great evasion puddle man
I address posts.
You don't.
COWARD.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121214 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree with you, I have never held up the bible in this debate. The evolutionist's speak of the bible far, far more than ever I have. The difference in us is I don't cloak my beliefs in pseudo science, and then claim those who don't agree with their beliefs as ignorant, you've seen it.The stop looking argument is their strawman .
ok to be fair you use what the bible says. it was a figure of speech.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#121215 Aug 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What? You are nitpicking over a grammatical error after all of the idiocy that you have spewed!
"that life can evolve on its own."
,,...that life can come into existence on it's own?

that's the idiocy I'm picking on. Is that what you believe?

Since: Oct 08

Avondale Estates, GA

#121216 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
as Wolf said,..go away
I cut back on chitlins, can't give up all the good stuff....sides, I got my cholersterol down under 400 so I can indulge once in a while

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#121217 Aug 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have to hold up the Bible if your ideas clearly come from there.
We are not as foolish as you are. You might fool yourself, but you won't fool others.
You didn't answer the question, which one of us concerning abiogenesis has the empirical evidence on their side.?
wondering

Morris, OK

#121218 Aug 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically the total energy of the universe is zero. Therefore no laws are broken if it made from nothing.
heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that a system can never have zero energy and since energy and mass are equivalent, pairs of particles can form spontaneously as long as they annihilate one another very quickly. but thanks to gravity the only force that always attracts the net energy balance of the universe may be as close to zero as you can get

Since: Oct 08

Avondale Estates, GA

#121219 Aug 28, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Stop eating that garbage. I don't want to lose a pen pal.
the above post was meant for you, I don't know whats going on
wondering

Morris, OK

#121220 Aug 28, 2014
ok my side where it shows the posters name used to be yellow is now sky/baby blue. what is the deal.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#121221 Aug 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically the total energy of the universe is zero. Therefore no laws are broken if it made from nothing.
If "God" made them He's responsible for them.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121222 Aug 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is because you do not understand what is and what is not evidence.
And how has the work on abiogenesis ever hit a brick wall?
you don't have a clue what evidence is. technically ( i see you like that word) the bible is evidence for it is history and evidence from the past is history(before the present) even evidence for evolution is from history.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121223 Aug 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I like how you summed it down to YEC"s to avoid the point. creationists don't have to be YEC's. a creationists believes life and the universe was created by god 5,000 or 5,000,000,000 years ago.
do you believe in god? lets have your stance on god to see where you stand.
I am agnostic and if creationists accept the established science (big bang, evolution) I have no problems with a god being invoked. I also do not mind when creationists question the gaps in our scientific understanding. Like the gaps in cosmology (dark matter and energy) or in abiogenesis (of course abiogenesis has still much work in progress). My position is exactly the same as Chimney's or Dude's or many others here.
So, I am merely indifferent on god, not anti-god.
But when fundamentalists are spouting there blind faith in the old bronze age caboodle, I always enjoy some poking around.
And don't get me wrong: I strongly oppose the OT god. Because of the immorality of the OT and its endless caboodle and rubbish. For about the same reason I do not like Allah. As a matter of fact, I don't like any of the Abrahamic religions. It is too childish and superstitious. The OT is hardly a book worth reading. I like many of the Indian writings more. They are far more intelligent mature ans far less nagging.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#121224 Aug 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that a system can never have zero energy and since energy and mass are equivalent, pairs of particles can form spontaneously as long as they annihilate one another very quickly. but thanks to gravity the only force that always attracts the net energy balance of the universe may be as close to zero as you can get
Neither do I but we both say things anyway.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121225 Aug 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you are the same as turkaboy. your argument is not about science or evolution. your argument is about god period and that is what makes your argument pointless and bad. you could not accept if science said in 15 years said it was god and that is that. you would declare war on science. which shows your argument is against god, not about science.
Let's have an estimate of my posts on god compared to my posts on evolution and science.
5% on god and 95% on science and evolution?
Must be close to that.
So WTF are you tattling about?
I DO NOT EVEN CARE ABOUT GODS.
It is irrelevant for me.

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) 16 min Silverwing 218,951
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr Bittersweet Goodbyes 4,308
A Five Letter Word (Jan '12) 1 hr Bittersweet Goodbyes 2,675
News Serena to McEnroe: Leave me out of it 1 hr Rick Perry s Closet 2
A six word game (Dec '08) 2 hr Trouser Cough 21,067
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 2 hr Bad Bex 2,745
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 2 hr Brandiiiiiiii 5,807
What Turns You Off? 4 hr twowheelsforever 646
More from around the web