Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223366 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.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#121914 Sep 6, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Because compared to American muscle, the Golf only hops a bit.
There is no doubt Ferdinand Porsche (Czechoslovakian) was brilliant, but he died in '51.
My wife had a new Beetle, which was essentially a Golf in disguise. It fell apart in just a couple years.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121915 Sep 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i don't think it has to be one or the other. that is you.
i agree with what we know how to test evidence supports evolution. now I ask again how would science test for a evidence of a god with what little we know? for real if you do not know of a test or tests that can either prove or disprove god. how can you demand evidence for something you know science cannot yet do?
Still a lying sack of shit I see. You were the one making the false dichotomies. I pointed them out to you, twice.

And one more time, it is always up to the people making a claim to supply the evidence.

Is the concept of Russell's Magic Teapot beyond your ability to understand?

Does anybody out there know how to dumb down Russell's Magic Teapot a level that wondering can understand?
TFCN

Chickasha, OK

#121916 Sep 6, 2014
The whole universe is evolving with purpose and that purpose is awareness. Some say that they don't see any evidence of evolution,perhaps they just haven't evolved that particular Convergence,divergence region of the cerebral cortex yet,the evolution of imagination as an awareness tool that can allow us to look outside the box or even the known universe. It might even allow us to see what has been there right in front of our face all the time. I am going to share some occult,(hidden),knowledge with those of you that have imagination,those that don't need to look away RIGHT NOW. YHWH,pronounced yaaway,the Hebrew mystical god of Abraham,that would have been Allee in the language of Jesus,and Allah in Arabic,is a magic word. When the proper vowels are added between the consonants YHWH,you have the 4 known elements of the time,Fire,Water,Air,and Earth. Not a super human being living up on the other side of the clouds,an ongoing interaction of 4 elements,the 4 forces of the time,sounds somewhat familiar. The Qabalah,(Tree of Life),has 3 pillars as the original "I AM" descends from the creation to manifestation in physical reality, the right pillar is the force of "I AM" one might say energy and is male. The left pillar as "I AM" descends is the Form and is female,the matter that makes up our universe. The middle pillar is where the measuring takes place that particles require to fix there location according to the Law Givers Of Physics. These days we are far more sophisticated,we now know that the original "I AM" sound was a Bang a Big one that has been attracting jittering quarks and spinning electrons to dance for billions of years now. Perhaps the original awareness is a syncronization of jitters,dancing to the same beat as this universe expands on this wave of probability in a sea of possibility that the bulk universe on the other side of now is. Now we call those forces the Strong Nuclear force,Weak Nuclear Force,Electromagnetic Force and the Gravitational Force,finally getting back on track after those dark ages that still have those without much imagination locked up in fear of Knowledge. Some say that photons and the Higgs Boson are information carriers,what good is information to a universe that is without awareness,perhaps gravity is a word for the way the universe is aware of itself on a micro level and life is the way the universe becomes aware of itself on a macro level,and that awareness is expanding.

Back to that evolving sense organ the cerebral cortex where we use imagination to look into the future and to make modifications to the past. What a great tool for LIFE to use in many ways to insure survival of species.Looking to the stars and contemplating travel,seeding the universe with life and the awareness that comes with it. Using that evolving sense organ the cerebral cortex to imagine ways to survive all kinds of environmental changes, even those caused by the ignorance in the belief that some God,Allah or Jesus is going to come and zap some to gardens and virgins or Heaven, and most to Hell. Those evolving neurons in that brain making layer upon layer of maps of the self aware self,now also a tool of the Higher Consciousness of Life that we all share in.

Perhaps the religious people need to study their religion a little deeper, even the word ALLAH is AL the sacred something and LAH the sacred nothing,something out of nothing it would seem to be another way to say Big Bang. Perhaps the scientist need to take a focused deep breath and know the universe they are a very aware part of.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121917 Sep 6, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
btw we humiliated you Brazilians in soccer. hahaha.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =RLZUKqpXYzUXX
Are we here in kindergarten?
wondering

Morris, OK

#121918 Sep 6, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what happened:
- the first 97,400 years of your era nobody was looking for what's beneath our feet. THAT part started some 2,600 years ago with the first Greek, when Theophrastus (372-287 BCE) wrote the work Peri Lithon ('On Stones'), the first attest of a man trying to figure out what's beneath our feet. The Greeks also has some preliminary ideas about the origin of species. Anaximander of Miletus (c.610546 BC) proposed that the first animals lived in water, during a wet phase of the Earth's past, and that the first land-dwelling ancestors of mankind must have been born in water, and only spent part of their life on land. He also argued that the first human of the form known today must have been the child of a different type of animal, because man needs prolonged nursing to live. Empedocles (c. 490430 BC), argued that what we call birth and death in animals are just the mingling and separations of elements which cause the countless "tribes of mortal things". Epicurus (341270 BC) anticipated the idea of natural selection by assuming that many species had been spontaneously generated from "Gaia" in the past, but that only the most functional forms survived to have off-spring.
Astonishing for people who had no single scientific vehicle at their disposal but only their eyes to look around.
- after some other preliminary attempts, the Muslim scientists of the Middle Ages made better advancements. Abu al-Rayhan al-Biruni (9731048 CE) was one of those and argued for the first time that India was once a sea. How close he was. In 1377 Ibn Khaldun asserted that humans developed from "the world of the monkeys", in a process by which "species become more numerous". He writes: "This world with all the created things in it has a certain order and solid construction. It shows nexuses between causes and things caused, combinations of some parts of creation with others, and transformations of some existent things into others, in a pattern that is both remarkable and endless", and: "We explained there that the whole of existence in (all) its simple and composite worlds is arranged in a natural order of ascent and descent, so that everything constitutes an uninterrupted continuum".
- when European science arose, things really started. We are now talking about the last few 3 centuries.
- hence, it took science some preliminary attempts and 3 century to figure it out and to come with all the empirical evidence needed.
- the total era of 100,000 years though there was religion. Religion has all chances to figure out how to substantiate its position. In all those 100,000 years it didn't succeed.
Let's compare again:
1. science only some preliminary thoughts and 300 years of empirical observations
2. religion 100,000 ample years and STILL NOTHING.
WHAT point are you trying to make IN THE FIRST PLACE?
I agree but: lets compare again
1) there are all kinds of tests for evolution that took many many years to learn.
2) science knows what to look for when it comes to evolution.
3) how many tests does science have for a god?
4) does science know what to look for when looking for a god?

how can you demand evidence for something you know science cannot yet do? "
wondering

Morris, OK

#121919 Sep 6, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Still a lying sack of shit I see. You were the one making the false dichotomies. I pointed them out to you, twice.
And one more time, it is always up to the people making a claim to supply the evidence.
Is the concept of Russell's Magic Teapot beyond your ability to understand?
Does anybody out there know how to dumb down Russell's Magic Teapot a level that wondering can understand?
you can dance around all you like and call me what you want.
but answer this question. "I ask again how would science test for a evidence of a god with what little we know? you do not know of a test or tests that can either prove or disprove god. how can you demand evidence for something you know science cannot yet do? "
wondering

Morris, OK

#121920 Sep 6, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. We have been testing for gods for at least 10,000 years.
what scientific tests have been used to test for a god? if science can't do it how do you expect common man to do it?

“Peter hole is a pink twatt”

Since: Aug 14

Mumbai, India

#121922 Sep 6, 2014
interesting !
Every guy is busy with some explanation
while i'm just curious to know "will moller be able to make a real flying car? Or we just have to satisfy ourselves with transition/aeromobil/pal-v one

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#121923 Sep 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
what scientific tests have been used to test for a god? if science can't do it how do you expect common man to do it?
Everything you can think of has been scientifically tested.
Including but limited to, prophesy, clairvoyance, divinity, prayer. miracles, divine providence ,
intelligent design and paranormal power.

Epic Fail...
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121924 Sep 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree but: lets compare again
1) there are all kinds of tests for evolution that took many many years to learn.
2) science knows what to look for when it comes to evolution.
3) how many tests does science have for a god?
4) does science know what to look for when looking for a god?
how can you demand evidence for something you know science cannot yet do? "
1. there was 100,000 years for religion to develop the same tests, why didn't it manage to develop some sound ones and why took it science some 100's of years to accomplish that?

2. I don't think that's the clue. Both kinds were walking the same grounds: the religious and the scientists as well. The religious people walked the land 100,000 years and didn't manage to make sense out of it. They saw the same things as the later scientists. The same stones, the same fossils, the same earth layers when they walked through a canyon etc. etc.

I think the difference is not knowing to look at but to LOOK and OBSERVE in the first place without letting old myths and inherited stories interfere those observations.

The essence here is a difference in ATTITUDE. The attitude reads:'the observations prevail, not the thoughts'.

The old Greeks lacked any sophisticated scientific methodology. They had no measuring devices, telescopes of microscopes. They only had there very eyes. Instead of sticking their heads all days in old handed down writings or gullibly believing old myth stories told at the camp fire by the elderly, they made - maybe one of the most profound and important - steps in the history of human proficiency: they decided to OBSERVE FIRST and THAN draw conclusions. It was Aristotl who came up with the notion of tabula rasa ("clean slate" or "blank tablet"): a view of mind as an originally blank or empty recorder (Locke used the words "white paper") on which experience leaves marks. The human mind as an empty vessel, to be filled with all the 'stuff' from the senses.

The Muslim philosophers elaborated on that. Real science for that reason did not start in Europa but in medieval Islam. It was founded upon observation.

In Europe only in the 15th century this attitude was copied. It was Leonardo da Vinci who stated 'If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings'. After centuries of intellectual stagnation due to Christian theocracy, the Renaissance kicked in, the 'Rebirth', a justly designation.

3. Nil. Science only deals with OBSERVABLE phenomena. Both the phenomenon to be explained as well as the one that is thought to be the cause are required to be observable. No believer EVER has came up with the observation of god. God never showed up as well on his own. Observations, it is all about observations in science.

4. No, nobody of the believers explains WHERE to look at. They even declare that god isn't beyond time and space and human comprehension. Purely scientifically spoken, in such a situation, scientists just shrug their shoulders and continue their course. Observations, it is all about observations in science.

WHY would you not require and demand EVIDENCE for such far-reaching claims as a god?
WHY wouldn't it be far better to let our human claims rest upon OBSERVATIONS and not vague ideas and bronze age mythology stories?????

I have decided to build my life upon realistic things.
I don't care other people believing (AS LONG AS they don't f*ck with science and when the established science contradicts their beliefs, OFF goes the beliefs, JUST AS SIMPLE).
But I believe in life BEFORE death and not in some vague afterlife.

Since: Jul 14

Location hidden

#121925 Sep 6, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Are we here in kindergarten?
What does this have to do with kindergarten?
You still didn't answer my question why you have learned German if you hate Germany.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#121926 Sep 6, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
What does this have to do with kindergarten?
You still didn't answer my question why you have learned German if you hate Germany.
Maybe he lost a bet or the classes for the really cool languages were filled.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121927 Sep 6, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
1. there was 100,000 years for religion to develop the same tests, why didn't it manage to develop some sound ones and why took it science some 100's of years to accomplish that?
again you keep going on about religions. religions are not science.
all tests took 100,000 years to develop or we would have had them sooner.
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>2. I don't think that's the clue. Both kinds were walking the same grounds: the religious and the scientists as well. The religious people walked the land 100,000 years and didn't manage to make sense out of it. They saw the same things as the later scientists. The same stones, the same fossils, the same earth layers when they walked through a canyon etc. etc.
I think the difference is not knowing to look at but to LOOK and OBSERVE in the first place without letting old myths and inherited stories interfere those observations.
The essence here is a difference in ATTITUDE. The attitude reads:'the observations prevail, not the thoughts'.
you are again correct. both were walking this earth for 100,000 years. it took 97,400 to discover, test and understand what was under our feet. their god is supposedly not of this earth. we know so little about what is out in the universe. we have explored 1% or less. so again what tests have been used or could be used to test for something that is supposedly supernatural and not of this earth?
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>3. Nil. Science only deals with OBSERVABLE phenomena. Both the phenomenon to be explained as well as the one that is thought to be the cause are required to be observable. No believer EVER has came up with the observation of god. God never showed up as well on his own. Observations, it is all about observations in science.
so if it can't be seen/observed then it must not exists? where would science be if that was the rule they followed? many things science knows were thoughts that lead to the discovery.
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>4. No, nobody of the believers explains WHERE to look at. They even declare that god isn't beyond time and space and human comprehension. Purely scientifically spoken, in such a situation, scientists just shrug their shoulders and continue their course. Observations, it is all about observations in science.
WHY would you not require and demand EVIDENCE for such far-reaching claims as a god?
WHY wouldn't it be far better to let our human claims rest upon OBSERVATIONS and not vague ideas and bronze age mythology stories?????
I have decided to build my life upon realistic things.
I don't care other people believing (AS LONG AS they don't f*ck with science and when the established science contradicts their beliefs, OFF goes the beliefs, JUST AS SIMPLE).
But I believe in life BEFORE death and not in some vague afterlife.
they say in the heavens (up?) you keep saying "they" don't know not understanding "they" even includes science.
again how can you demand evidence on something even science does not know hot to test for?

observations, hmm according to what the stories say much of it was observed back in that time.
i never and we never will observe washington crossing the delaware but i am pretty sure he did by the stories told.

the honest answer is we don't know. we don't know what or how to test for a god, super natural being. etc. etc. until we can and do test for them, if they exists, then and only then can we say yes or no. until then it is nothing but belief,,, whether your belief is yes or no.

Since: Jul 14

Location hidden

#121928 Sep 6, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe he lost a bet or the classes for the really cool languages were filled.
You idiot. German is the coolest language in the world. German is very concise and sounds amazing.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#121929 Sep 6, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
You idiot. German is the coolest language in the world. German is very concise and sounds amazing.
It is? Heavens to Betsy!

Dear Diary. Today my good friend Adolph told me that German is the coolest language on earth, even though it sounds like vomiting and explosive diarrhea. He should know though. He is 100% Douche.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121930 Sep 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you can dance around all you like and call me what you want.
but answer this question. "I ask again how would science test for a evidence of a god with what little we know? you do not know of a test or tests that can either prove or disprove god. how can you demand evidence for something you know science cannot yet do? "
Another idiotic question. It is up to people that believe in god to find evidence for him. That fact is not dancing you moron.

I gave you the example of Russell's Magic Teapot. That is exactly the same as your god. Why don't you believe in Russell's Magic Teapot?
wondering

Morris, OK

#121931 Sep 6, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Another idiotic question. It is up to people that believe in god to find evidence for him. That fact is not dancing you moron.
I gave you the example of Russell's Magic Teapot. That is exactly the same as your god. Why don't you believe in Russell's Magic Teapot?
you believe in evolution. did you find evidence of evolution? nope you did not. science did.

being scientific evidence is all that really counts. how would science test for any evidence of a god?

being scientific evidence is all that really counts. how can you demand evidence for something you know science cannot yet do or does not try to do?

prediction you will avoid answering any of these again for the 5th time.

last but not least i have no god. i find it interesting that unless someone believes what you do, you thing they believe in god, science is great and has gave us many many things but i do not worship science as you do.

your main interests in science are
1) for evolution against creation
2) to hope it disproves god which in your mind it already has.
3) to battle people that have faith in god
4) those are poor reasons to like something that is great.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121932 Sep 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you believe in evolution. did you find evidence of evolution? nope you did not. science did.
being scientific evidence is all that really counts. how would science test for any evidence of a god?
being scientific evidence is all that really counts. how can you demand evidence for something you know science cannot yet do or does not try to do?
prediction you will avoid answering any of these again for the 5th time.
last but not least i have no god. i find it interesting that unless someone believes what you do, you thing they believe in god, science is great and has gave us many many things but i do not worship science as you do.
your main interests in science are
1) for evolution against creation
2) to hope it disproves god which in your mind it already has.
3) to battle people that have faith in god
4) those are poor reasons to like something that is great.
I found evidence of evolution too. You forgot where my education was. In fact many many people have found evidence for evolution. Finding one fossil is by definition finding evidence for evolution.

And once again it is up to the people that believe in something to supply the evidence. And you complete and utter moron your questions have been answered each and every time that you have asked them. They have been stupid questions and that has been pointed out to you.

Just because you don't like the answers does not mean that your question has not been answered.

And yet you have been totally hypocritical and avoided answering why you don't believe in Russell's Magic Teapot. I have asked that at least twice.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121933 Sep 6, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I found evidence of evolution too. You forgot where my education was. In fact many many people have found evidence for evolution. Finding one fossil is by definition finding evidence for evolution.
iinding a fossil is finding something that once lived. not quite evidence of evolution. a good example is tree fossils are not evidence of evolution. nice try though.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>And once again it is up to the people that believe in something to supply the evidence. And you complete and utter moron your questions have been answered each and every time that you have asked them. They have been stupid questions and that has been pointed out to you.
they are simple questions that you dodge. for reasons
1) you know science has no tests for a god
2) you know science does not know what to look for when looking for a god
3) if you answered them it would show your question of "show scientific evidence for god" is rather moronically pointless.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Just because you don't like the answers does not mean that your question has not been answered.
And yet you have been totally hypocritical and avoided answering why you don't believe in Russell's Magic Teapot. I have asked that at least twice.
oh wow asked twice and dodged mine 6 times. you have not answered any of them. you dance around them. that is what creationists to do. you must be a creationists.

russells magic teapot is just another bs analogy an atheist made up to avoid addressing things about god. it has nothing to do with science or evidence. it is odd that many of the things you bring up are the creation of an atheist, who in turn do not believe in god. that makes your argument more of an atheist standpoint argument rather than a scientific one for the mere fact that you are using your personal beliefs(atheist) to avoid being honest and saying that you know science has no test for god and does not know how to test for god.

prediction; you will avoid the question/'s again for the 7th time even after I answered yours.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121934 Sep 6, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I found evidence of evolution too. You forgot where my education was. In fact many many people have found evidence for evolution. Finding one fossil is by definition finding evidence for evolution.
oh I forgot. fossil can form in thousands of years up to millions of years. fossils can rapidly form in volcanic eruption areas. heII science has even created fossils in the lab in only 28 weeks.

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
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 14 min wichita-rick 7,528
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 42 min wichita-rick 230,096
2words into 2new words (May '12) 1 hr wichita-rick 9,381
In honor of princess hey (Apr '14) 1 hr Old Dud 279
Name something you shouldn't do naked .... (Mar '14) 1 hr Just Saying 745
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 2 hr Just Saying 12,935
Goodbye Princess Hey (Jul '14) 2 hr Just Saying 72
What's for dinner? (Feb '12) 2 hr Just Saying 9,916
Stupid things to ponder ... (Feb '08) 5 hr Just Sayin 7,931