Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 172079 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

#121344 Aug 29, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
here you go again. just as it says. you blame someone/say someone is the reason for your actions. you do that crap to everyone. i knew you would blame it on someone you can't help it with your disorder. lmao
No, blaming you for my negative reaction to your idiocy is not blaming everyone.

Once again you show yourself to be a creationist by your all or nothing reasoning.

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Level 9

Since: Jul 09

Arcadia, LA.

#121345 Aug 29, 2014
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
it might make it easier for them to squeeze in some more video ads and pop ups and pop outs and other useless shit.
Install Adblocker Plus on your browser. Makes all those annoying ads go by-by.
Gary

Bellingham, WA

#121346 Aug 29, 2014
PROFESSOR X wrote:
Atheistic Scientists were Humiliated As Their Junk DNA Evolution Paradigm recently Collapsed
Anti-theistic scientists, Ken Miller, Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents made failed observations about DNA, such that their Darwinian evolution paradigm has collapsed. Not that long ago, junk DNA was being defended as an important element of the Darwinian evolution paradigm ... The question now seems to be whether Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents will continue to defend junk DNA, whatever they call it?- Rob Crowther,PhD
Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg discusses modern genomics and the collapse of evolutionists junk DNA theory.
http://www.cross.tv/66770
Doubt Atheism & Question Darwinism
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
.
300 years ago the Europeans knew almost nothing about the
interior of Africa. That's why it was called the "dark continent."
It took 200 years of exploration by many explorers to understand
Africa.

Genetics is the same way. There is a whole nother world there that
has to be explored. The so called "junk DNA" is turning out
to be not as useless as first thought. The more exploration there is,
the more that will be understood about things like junk DNA and how
it all fits in.
Genetics is vast. Give it time.
Gary

Bellingham, WA

#121347 Aug 29, 2014
PROFESSOR X wrote:
<quoted text>
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Technical Paper: The Positive Case for Intelligent Design
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/files...
Get the Facts
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
Okay, let's accept intelligent design.
What created the intelligence behind the design?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121348 Aug 29, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you can say what you want. yes we know the universe is expanding but we really don't know what caused/created/started the universe. it could have been a singularity or it could have been 1millionth it current size. we don't know is the most honest answer anyone can give.
funny you keep saying uncaused. heating up/expanding would be a cause.
.
I would see both of these as effects. Heating up can cause something else but something caused the heating up, such as breaking of bonds, radioactive decay etc. An expanding universe would be the effect of some force that is causing the universe to expand, such as the initial force (Big Bang).
.
Eventually we have to work back to the initial cause.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121349 Aug 29, 2014
Gary wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, let's accept intelligent design.
What created the intelligence behind the design?
.
Can non material things be created (such as intelligence, emotions).
.
But getting to the heart of the question is who/what created G-d. Since G-d is not material, he need not be created or sustained. Since there is no loss of energy (in being sustained) he can be eternal whereas material things have a lifespan and cannot exist forever or from eternity past. Another dimension to this is time itself. Are there circumstances where time does not exist or is irrelevant?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#121350 Aug 29, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have any friends, they must be chained to a fence.
You debunk only your intellect. Instead of a serious discussion about a subject in which there are no certain answers, you make glib condescending comments, replete with an unwarranted and wholly unearned sense of superiority. In view of this, I see you as an arrogant blowhard, not even narrow-minded but closed-minded. In short,I think you are intellectually in too deep.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121351 Aug 29, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Can non material things be created (such as intelligence, emotions).
.
But getting to the heart of the question is who/what created G-d. Since G-d is not material, he need not be created or sustained. Since there is no loss of energy (in being sustained) he can be eternal whereas material things have a lifespan and cannot exist forever or from eternity past. Another dimension to this is time itself. Are there circumstances where time does not exist or is irrelevant?
I personally dislike the word "created" used in that fashion in this debate. A better way to ask it would be if emotion and intelligence cane arise naturally and the evidence indicates that it can be. Brain damage in an individual can lower intelligence and change emotional patterns. The larger brains that a species have the more complex their mental interactions tend to be.

For your second part, God is probably an invention of man. You claim that your God is immaterial. How then does your immaterial God interact with a material world? If you need a God to create the universe then surely you need a meta-God to create your God.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#121352 Aug 29, 2014
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
this guys is a hom o, not that theres anything wrong with that....you can tell from his picture.....my gaydar went off.
Perhaps you'd like to put it another way. As it is usually understood, having "gaydar" means one is himself of that persuasion.
Unless, of course, you've holding out on me.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#121353 Aug 29, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>You debunk only your intellect. Instead of a serious discussion about a subject in which there are no certain answers, you make glib condescending comments, replete with an unwarranted and wholly unearned sense of superiority. In view of this, I see you as an arrogant blowhard, not even narrow-minded but closed-minded. In short,I think you are intellectually in too deep.
Damn! I did it again, sending a post to myself! Useless Topix changes!

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#121354 Aug 29, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What? You don't like me because I can debunk your beliefs?
You debunk only your credibility. You are closed-minded, arrogant, and intellectually in too deep.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121355 Aug 29, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Whatever happened to "empirical evidence"?
You know, where "life only comes from life"? Jesus was dead and then came back to life? That's breaking your own rules again.
<quoted text>
1 - If an empty tomb is all that's needed then that validates pretty much all the Egyptian Pharaohs.
2 - Since we know there's no contemporary evidence of Jesus even existing we all know you're BSing here. That's why EVERY time we ask for CONTEMPORARY evidence you can only give us Josephus and the usual suspects (all of whom existed AFTER Jesus allegedly died).
3 - Again, people who commit suicide for religious beliefs aren't necessarily right, but most likely incredibly stupid. Hence 9/11
4 - Next time don't forget to post your sources instead of plagiarising them:
https://www.google.co.uk/search...
5 - There's a BIG difference between evidence and apologetics.
.
<quoted text>
1 - If an empty tomb is all that's needed then that validates pretty much all the Egyptian Pharaohs.
.
No one to my knowlegde has claimed to see a dead Pharoah riased from the dead, and not one of these Pharoah's to my knowledge has had any effect on human civilization.
.
<quoted text>
2 - Since we know there's no contemporary evidence of Jesus even existing we all know you're BSing here. That's why EVERY time we ask for CONTEMPORARY evidence you can only give us Josephus and the usual suspects (all of whom existed AFTER Jesus allegedly died).
.
We have the NT record of his existance, we also have an ossuary of his brother which mentions Jesus. Also history is replete with accounts not written at the time of the occurance. We don't discount these. Also I doubt any reputable historian doubts the existance of Jesus. Lastly I seem to notice that what you want to do is narrow the field of evidence into something which you think makes it impossible to accommodate. But in this instance the ossuary is hard evidence.
.
<quoted text>
3 - Again, people who commit suicide for religious beliefs aren't necessarily right, but most likely incredibly stupid. Hence 9/11
.
I can agree on this point except for the stupid. Even 911 has had a significant impact on the world. They achieved what they wanted and the agreed upon price was death. The chose to pay this price.
.
<quoted text>
4 - Next time don't forget to post your sources instead of plagiarising them:
.
Since when is this required on Topix?
.
<quoted text>
5 - There's a BIG difference between evidence and apologetics.
.
Apologetics is better. It requires a logical explanation of evidence to support a conclusion. Evidence by itself can be manipulated to form different conclusions.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121356 Aug 29, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>You debunk only your intellect. Instead of a serious discussion about a subject in which there are no certain answers, you make glib condescending comments, replete with an unwarranted and wholly unearned sense of superiority. In view of this, I see you as an arrogant blowhard, not even narrow-minded but closed-minded. In short,I think you are intellectually in too deep.
Wrong, my sense of superiority is well earned. Yours on the other hand is laughable.

I see that you did not address my shooting down of Luke's fairy tale. You make gross mistakes about the Big Bang. Remember, the laws then are not the same as the laws now. We already have a hint that particle parity is not always preserved, this is in answer to your question of why there is an abundance of normal matter versus anti-matter:

http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/expt.ht...

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#121357 Aug 29, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps you'd like to put it another way. As it is usually understood, having "gaydar" means one is himself of that persuasion.
Unless, of course, you've holding out on me.
gimme a kiss and i'll tell you
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121358 Aug 29, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I personally dislike the word "created" used in that fashion in this debate. A better way to ask it would be if emotion and intelligence cane arise naturally and the evidence indicates that it can be. Brain damage in an individual can lower intelligence and change emotional patterns. The larger brains that a species have the more complex their mental interactions tend to be.
For your second part, God is probably an invention of man. You claim that your God is immaterial. How then does your immaterial God interact with a material world? If you need a God to create the universe then surely you need a meta-God to create your God.
.
I don't think we can say that emotions and intelligence can arise naturally by themselves. It seems to me that they are an intangible part of the brain. It wasn't me who brought this up. I just responded to a post.
.
<quoted text>
Brain damage in an individual can lower intelligence and change emotional patterns.
.
I can't see how this supports intelligence arising naturally.
.
<quoted text>
The larger brains that a species have the more complex their mental interactions tend to be.
.
I can't agree with this either. Animals with larger brains than humans are not more complex.
.
If something is immaterial it need not be created (as we just discussed above) but it doesn't logically follow that immaterial things have no effect on the material. Light for instance is immaterial yet it can heat and even move things (solar sail). It can cause plants to function.
.
Also your postulation that G-d needs a creator will end in a logical dead end as there would have to be an endless creations of gods.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#121359 Aug 29, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Just what this thread needs - another pompous ass.
Why, was having you in the forum one too many?

Let's us all not forget who was throwing around the straw man argument. If pointing that out to you if how you define a pompous ass, then I wonder if you meet any other type of person in the world, or do you call them all pompous asses when they point your your logical fallacies?

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#121360 Aug 29, 2014
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
this guys is a hom o, not that theres anything wrong with that....you can tell from his picture.....my gaydar went off.
Oh Larry must be so proud, another Christian heard from.

Since: Jul 14

Location hidden

#121361 Aug 29, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Why Bob Blowhard , did you had a sex change?
you are a liar. he has to be an American.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#121362 Aug 29, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Can non material things be created (such as intelligence, emotions).
.
But getting to the heart of the question is who/what created G-d. Since G-d is not material, he need not be created or sustained. Since there is no loss of energy (in being sustained) he can be eternal whereas material things have a lifespan and cannot exist forever or from eternity past. Another dimension to this is time itself. Are there circumstances where time does not exist or is irrelevant?
Do you have any evidence of your contention?

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#121363 Aug 29, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>
You debunk only your credibility. You are closed-minded, arrogant, and intellectually in too deep.
"Evidence by itself can be manipulated to form different conclusions"

Mmmmkay stargazer,,,,what ever you says.......PFFFT!

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
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 3 min Crazy Jae 9,003
"2" TWO word FUN game*** (Mar '13) 3 min CJ Rocker 1,459
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 4 min CJ Rocker 9,186
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 4 min KNIGHT DeVINE 12,830
News Police: Fake officer tried to pull over off-dut... 5 min Pope Out To Pasture 1
gimme a dolla 6 min Crazy Jae 14
Only Three Word (Nov '09) 8 min Crazy Jae 12,000
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 11 min CJ Rocker 167,491
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 27 min Lemmy Guess 42,143
hoosier hillbilly (Sep '12) 1 hr Crystal_Clear722 1,968
Answer a question with a question 2 hr Old Sam 537
More from around the web