Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 199444 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: Jul 14

Location hidden

#121867 Sep 5, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
No they were not.
All Nazis were Germans.
And most Germans were collaborating AT LEAST.
(Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?- JAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
Why did you learn German if you hate us?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121868 Sep 5, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
They knew, to them it was a step in natural selection?
No for Hitler it was his work to finish the work of the Almighty God:

'What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people,... so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.(Hitler, 1943, 214)'

'The task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission (Hitler 1943, 398).'

'Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).(Die Bücherei 1935, 279)' Die Bücherei was an official Nazist journal for lending libraries.

'Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.'(Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 65).

About the special creation of the Aryan race by the Almighty and the sin to dilute it through racial intermixing:'The völkisch-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.'(Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 562).

You are a protestant?
Read the writings of your lovely founder, Martin Luther on the Jews:'Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen'('On the Jews and their lies')- it as if you were already reading the complete Nazi propaganda avant la lettre.
OnlyPatchWork

Brewster, NY

#121869 Sep 5, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a stupid comparison. You are comparing German Americans with Germans that include many Turks. You should compare it with German Germans. Besides the IQ is not a reliable measurement for intelligence.
It seems that the IQ of German Americans, is still higher than that of German non-Turks.

The IQ of Polish Americans, and Irish Americans is much higher than their homeland.

IQ is reliable enough to show that down syndrome people, score a retarded IQ.

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#121871 Sep 5, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
“On your own bat”
Not with the help of or helping out joint efforts
It was actually just 1, against poorly armed hill farmers on the Caribbean island of Grenada
With a track record like that I find it highly amusing how the US picks in the far superior war record of France.
No my dear you are picking apart a joke, The French were instrumental in defeating the English here , without the French Navy , there possibly wouldn't have been a United States.
But as much as the French are a part of what we are, so is England.
We are in it together, well our history is New World but the old world is a part of us too.....

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#121872 Sep 5, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't confuse Nazis with Germans. These are two totally different things.
LOL

Since: Jul 14

Location hidden

#121873 Sep 5, 2014
reporterreport wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did you (attempt to) learn English, since you hate it and all English speakers so?
Because Science is unfortunately full of English rubbish.

Since: Jul 14

Location hidden

#121874 Sep 5, 2014
OnlyPatchWork wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems that the IQ of German Americans, is still higher than that of German non-Turks.
Can you prove it?

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#121875 Sep 5, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you prove it?
Weenie dogs are smarter than German Sheppard's .
That makes you a poisonous Achtung. lol

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#121876 Sep 5, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Saying complexity is a function of intelligence is no different than you saying complexity is a natural result over time. You haven't backed that up yet.
False. We *know* that complexity results when there are sufficiently strong feedback loops in a system. We even understand the tilting point between complex behavior and non-complex behavior. There is a whole area of mathematics devoted to this. That means there can be testable predictions about whether the known laws of physics are sufficient to explain the observed levels of complexity. Well, there is enough non-linearity even in fluid motion to allows for great increases of complexity and exactly the types of elaborations we see.

One thing we have learned mathematically is that very simple rules, when applied over and over and over again, can lead to very complex dynamics. When it was discovered, it was a bit of a surprise how easily complexity can arise from even simple non-linearities in the governing equations.
Additionally you reject my evidence (the evidence of faith and our scriptures). So in essence what you are doing is saying I have to scientifically prove my position when my position is spiritual. That would be like me asking you to support your position spiritually when your position is scientific. Since you won't accept the spiritual position there is nothing left but for me to challenge the scientific position.
Fair enough. So, how do two people who disagree about a spiritual concept determine who is right and who is wrong? For mathematics, that is decided on the basis of proof from accepted axioms. For the sciences, it is decided based on testable predictions and observation. What procedure do you propose for spiritual concepts?

For example, I am sure that you and a moslem would disagree about a whole host of 'spiritual' concepts. What specific procedures can you propose that will resolve such a dispute, even in theory? Because it is clear that there is a LOT of disagreements about even the fundamental concepts relating to spirituality. Without at least some way of determining who is wrong, it seems to me that *any* claim of knowledge is spurious: it is all a matter of opinion and personal belief and not a matter of truth.

So, I am willing to consider that there is such a thing as 'spiritual truth', but for that to happen, those claiming it to exist must show *some* way of objectively resolving disputes. Without that, you cannot claim knowledge. All you have is untestable opinion. And *that* is something I am not interested in.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#121877 Sep 5, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did you learn German if you hate us?
Because Monty Python is funny in other languages too.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#121878 Sep 5, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Because Science is unfortunately full of English rubbish.
Germany apparently has its rubbish as well.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#121879 Sep 5, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you prove it?
You are.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#121880 Sep 5, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
If nothing we could actually observe hasn't been recorded in 6000 years then I doubt that it has happened or will happen.
What a load of crap! There are many, many things that take much longer than that to happen. For example, the collapse of a gas cloud to form a star takes a *minimum of a few million years. We won't see that happen in a mere 6000. Separation of continental plates can't be observed in 6000 years. Once again, the *minimum time for such to happen is in millions to tens of millions of years.
You lean to a fossil record which does not prove one animal descended from another and disregard the millions of observed generations without change.
Not at all. But we *know* that change does happen. It isn't steady. It can happen in jumps and starts, but it does happen. Now, you can hypothesize that none of the species alive today are descendants of those alive 50,000 years ago,but that would be quite a hard sell given what we know about biology. You could suppose that more advanced mammals that are alive today are descendants of those simpler mammals that lived 70 million years ago, nor of those more complex ones that lived 35 million years ago, but that would involve complete extinction of some lines and complete invention of new lines that *seems* quite related to the old ones.

So you are correct, we cannot see each and every generation of every species. But do you really think that is what is required to show the conclusions that are drawn? Given the simple fact that no humans existed 500,000 years ago, but that there were species that were bipedal apes that could use fire, is it really your claim that modern humans are NOT the progeny of those species? If so, you will have to do some fancy footwork with your biology to say where we did come from and why we are so close structurally to those older species.
I don't expect to change your mind but possibly someone will read these posts and see you not EVER giving any data that can be verified.
The data is in the fossils. It is in the dating of those fossils. It is in understanding the physical processes involved and understanding a bit of biology.
Additionally observation is telling us there are no new creatures. If we have had no change in kind in observed bacteria in over 135 million generations, assuming that tomorrow something happened in a culture where we could say that a new kind has occurred, then how long would it take to get a new hominid? 135 million generations at 24 years a generation? This puts us back before the Cambrian era. Further extrapolation leads us to conclude that life cannot have formed in 15 billion years. There is not enough time.
First, you cannot lump all bacteria into one 'kind' any more than you can lump all animals into one 'kind'. Bacteria are incredibly varied, even thought hey have a rather simpler genome than mammals.

Second, we *have* observed changes in bacteria that would correspond to new species if we looked at bacteria the same way we look at animals. Yes, they are still bacteria, but they are different bacteria with different properties and abilities (ex: digesting nylon).

Third, given the relative simplicity of the bacterial chromosome, and the complexity of a mammalian chromosome, would you expect bacteria that are well-adapted to their environments to change as fast as mammals? The answer is NO. There are many more ways an animal can change to adapt so there are many more pathways for animal evolution than bacterial evolution.

As for life forming, we know that there was no life 13.7 billion years ago: there were simply not the conditions to allow it to form. We know there was life on earth 3.7 billion years ago. So *something* happened during that time period to allow life to form. Given that life is a complex collection of interacting chemical reactions, isn't it reasonable to hypothesize that life came about chemically?
wondering

Morris, OK

#121881 Sep 5, 2014
complexity and creationism. two things always argued about.

in our lives things start out complex and get simpler.
in evolution it is said that things start out simple and get complex.

something that has been created is only deemed so if the creator is known.
if a creator can't be found then it must have happened on it own.

there are no test for their god same as there is no evidence. so how can one demand evidence if science can not produce a test to get that evidence?
then again how can one claim a creator if there is no evidence of him but a book and stories?

there is no evidence against a god and but there is evidence for evolution. thier evidence is faith which cannot be disproven. no evidence rules out a god and no evidence rules out evolution.

it all comes down to what you believe. they have faith in god and we have evidence of evolution. they have no evidence against evolution and we have no evidence against their god.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121882 Sep 5, 2014
lets clarify this part of that paragraph. no evidence rules out a god and no evidence rules out evolution."

it should have been said this way "having no evidence does not rule out a god and lack of evidence does not rule out evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121883 Sep 5, 2014
wondering wrote:
lets clarify this part of that paragraph. no evidence rules out a god and no evidence rules out evolution."
it should have been said this way "having no evidence does not rule out a god and lack of evidence does not rule out evolution.
A better clarification would be that all evidence supports evolution and no evidence supports a god.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121884 Sep 5, 2014
happiness is a choice not a result. but then again it is a result of our choices but our choices have to come before the result. if your choice that makes you happy is having faith and hoping to go to heaven, that is your choice. if your choice that makes you happy is to believe there is no god or no afterlife but evolution it what it all is about, that is your choice. myself,, we die and life is done. not much to look forward to there. do I think true believers live a happier life,, yes to a point. for we all can be happy as we live but as we get older and life loses its luster with age, we have nothing to look forward to but death and they look forward to a new beginning with their god. will they get it? we don’t know but we know we won’t,,,, we believe they won't while they believe they will.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121885 Sep 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
complexity and creationism. two things always argued about.
in our lives things start out complex and get simpler.
How so? Life was pretty easy for me when I was a baby.
in evolution it is said that things start out simple and get complex.
Actually it is observed.
something that has been created is only deemed so if the creator is known.[/QOTE]

That is fairly obvious.

[QUOTE]
if a creator can't be found then it must have happened on it own.
I don't think anyone has quite claimed that. It is more reasonable to say if no evidence of a creator can be found it would be very foolish to believe in one.
there are no test for their god same as there is no evidence. so how can one demand evidence if science can not produce a test to get that evidence?
Wrong again. The burden of proof is upon those that claim a god exists. If they cannot support their claim there is no valid reason to believe in their god. This has been illustrated with Russell's Magic Teapot and the Dragon in my Garage.
then again how can one claim a creator if there is no evidence of him but a book and stories?
Wow! An excellent point.
there is no evidence against a god and but there is evidence for evolution. thier evidence is faith which cannot be disproven. no evidence rules out a god and no evidence rules out evolution.
it all comes down to what you believe. they have faith in god and we have evidence of evolution. they have no evidence against evolution and we have no evidence against their god.
And you wee doing so well. The right statement would have been "there is no evidence for a god". And you are making a terrible equivocation error. Your conclusion is not supported. In fact you have a false dichotomy in their too. There is no reason that you cannot have both a god and evolution. You are showing your creationist bias again, you are assuming that your God is the only god. Your God, the God of Genesis has been debunked. God in general has not been debunked.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121886 Sep 6, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
A better clarification would be that all evidence supports evolution and no evidence supports a god.
again evidence of god or evolution, lack of does not mean false. science is on our side and we follow science but we do not have any scientific tests for their god. so we cannot show for or against/rule out their god. that is the best honest answer one can give.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121887 Sep 6, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How so? Life was pretty easy for me when I was a baby.
.
but yet you knew nothing and had to be shown and taught everything. you would have died on your own. so yes life is easy to a point when all is given and showed to you
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Actually it is observed.
.
in all honesty slight change is all that has been observed.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text> I don't think anyone has quite claimed that. It is more reasonable to say if no evidence of a creator can be found it would be very foolish to believe in one.
again in all honesty lack of evidence being it is not know how to test for or what to test does not disprove.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong again. The burden of proof is upon those that claim a god exists. If they cannot support their claim there is no valid reason to believe in their god. This has been illustrated with Russell's Magic Teapot and the Dragon in my Garage.
.
again in all honesty if science evidence is the only evidence that matters and science is not looking to show a god and doesn't know how to test for a god,, where do you expect them to get the evidence from?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Wow! An excellent point.
And you wee doing so well. The right statement would have been "there is no evidence for a god". And you are making a terrible equivocation error. Your conclusion is not supported. In fact you have a false dichotomy in their too. There is no reason that you cannot have both a god and evolution. You are showing your creationist bias again, you are assuming that your God is the only god. Your God, the God of Genesis has been debunked. God in general has not been debunked.
again in all honesty if no one knows how to look for evidence of a god or to test for a god,, how can one find it? science does not know how or what tests but yet you expect people of faith to show it. what can they show you that science itself cannot?

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) 42 min Northbound 56,877
Word Association (Mar '10) 47 min Mega Monster 20,421
Word Association (Jun '10) 48 min Mega Monster 30,683
News Donald Trump just gave a bizarre response to ho... 51 min Cordwainer Trout 2
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 53 min Sharlene45 192,957
News Cat blamed for turning on faucet, flooding Pomp... 1 hr NOM s Waffle House 7
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 1 hr Krypteia 32,417
2words into 2new words (May '12) 2 hr Sharlene45 2,318
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) 3 hr Mega Monster 7,354
More from around the web