Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223358 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.

wondering

Morris, OK

#121941 Sep 7, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
We already looked everywhere, they invisible you know.
this is all I need to address.
you say "we already looked every where". you forgot the 99+% of the universe we have not looked in. fail, big fail. try again.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121942 Sep 7, 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? "
Lets put it another way.

Humans have had thousands of years to find out if there is a way to prove the existence of the gods they have posited all that time.

Darwin took only 20 years to assemble a body of research and results that strongly supported his theory. Over the following 160 years, evidence has only continued to mount.

How can you demand anyone seriously choose a theory that nobody has been able to corroborate in 4000 years against a theory that has ironclad massive evidence supporting it in only 180 years?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121943 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
this is all I need to address.
you say "we already looked every where". you forgot the 99+% of the universe we have not looked in. fail, big fail. try again.
Do you think God might be hiding in the Crab Nebula then?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121944 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
the oldest living species that we can positively identify is the ginkgo tree, which is physically indistinguishable from specimens from 140 million years ago. so finding a 200,000 year old fossil of it would not tell you anything different/more than a 100 million year old fossil of it and depending on the quality it may not tell you much of anything of 50 million years back being they are physically indistinguishable from specimens from 140 million years ago.
A source would have been nice. But even if you found one evolutionary change is not demanded by the theory of evolution. That is not evidence against the theory of evolution.

Try again.
who said science is claiming there is a god? that is your bs line. believers tell you their bible and faith is their evidence of god but you want scientific evidence but yet you won't admit science does not know how or what to test for scientific evidence for god. which makes your question of asking for scientific evidence of god foolish.
Faith, by definition, is not evidence. It is belief in spite of a lack of evidence.

Try again.

And you are the one that is claiming there might be some validity for gods. That puts the burden of proof upon you.
the question isn't does science think or not think there is a god. the question is does science know what to test and how to test for a god? prediction you will void this again.
I never ignored it moron. I pointed out that it was a stupid question from the start. Why would science want to test for god?

And telling you that you asked an idiotic question and showing how it is idiotic, which I have done multiple times, is not ducking your question.

[QUOTE[
you demand scientific evidence for something science doesn't know how, doesn't know where, doesn't know any test etc etc. to find. so how if science does not know, do you expect to get scientific evidence?[/QUOTE]

No I didn't you idiot. Now you are lying. I said if you want to claim something exists it is up to you to provide evidence. You are probably too dense to understand the difference.
but yet science has the knowledge to show russell's magic teapot nothing more than an atheist trick/tactic to avoid things on god. science does not have the knowledge to test or find a god if one exists.
Wrong again. Time to pull your head out of your ass. It is not a trick. It simply shows how foolish your unsupported beliefs are. You want us to believe in your god that is not supported by evidence and yet you cannot explain how your god is different in any way from Russell's Magic Teapot.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#121945 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
this is all I need to address.
you say "we already looked every where". you forgot the 99+% of the universe we have not looked in. fail, big fail. try again.
Yeah the planet kolob is where he is...lol.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121946 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
lets see here who all can be honest;
1) i can be honest and say science does not know whether or not a god does exist.
2) i can also be honest and say with what we know, science does not know how or what to test for a god.
3) i can also be honest and say until science knows what and how to test for a god, there wonít be any scientific evidence of a godís existence or non-existence,, which up until either of those happen you either believe he does exist or you believe he doesnít exist,, and believing god does exist or does not exist is based on nothing more than belief. with that said i do not know if there is a god so i wonít claim there is or claim there isnít. both answers of claiming there is or claiming there isnít would be an appeal to probability fallacy. the most honest answer is we do not know.
both side commit tons of fallacies daily
1) when arguing god is real or is not real both sides commit a argument from ignorance fallacy because one thinks/is sure it cannot be proven false.
2) when arguing god is real or is not real both sides commit a argument from (personal) incredulity fallacy because one thinks i cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.
3) when arguing god is not real both sides commit a argument from silence fallacy because the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
4) when arguing god is real or not real both sides commit a burden of proof fallacy by thinking i need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
the list goes on and on folks. i just glanced through the aís and bís(actually I got tired of typing lol). whether you think god does or does not exist, the argument is only based on belief and belief only for now as of what we know.
now if you noticed I left out evolution in the 1-4 because we do have evidence for evolution, but just being stupid for either science or god does more harm than help you..
I agree that science cannot disprove God. I also think that this is not the core of the arguments on topix or anywhere else.

The argument is whether one should take seriously a bronze age account of God versus the evidence and theories of modern science. "God" is a possibility. "God" as represented in the Bible or Koran is an absurdity.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121947 Sep 7, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets put it another way.
Humans have had thousands of years to find out if there is a way to prove the existence of the gods they have posited all that time.
Darwin took only 20 years to assemble a body of research and results that strongly supported his theory. Over the following 160 years, evidence has only continued to mount.
How can you demand anyone seriously choose a theory that nobody has been able to corroborate in 4000 years against a theory that has ironclad massive evidence supporting it in only 180 years?
lets out it this way which is the actual way;
humans had had thousands of years for either. when darwin noticed evidence of evolution it took him 20 years (which by then man was more advanced than the prior 3800 years)to assemble a body of research and supported his theory. over the following 160 years, evidence has only continued to mount and we are still missing some.

how can you demand evidence of a god that in over 4000 years science has not been able to test for and does not know how to test for still to this day as advanced as we are? what we have found has been always right under our feet and a god is supposedly super natural, not of this earth so how would one test for a god if it took us over 3800 years to notice what was here on earth, right in front of our nose so to speak?

the honest answer is we do not know if there is a god and as of today we have know way to test for a god because we don't know what test to do.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121948 Sep 7, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think God might be hiding in the Crab Nebula then?
i, we have no clue where god is or even if a god exists.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121949 Sep 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
A source would have been nice. But even if you found one evolutionary change is not demanded by the theory of evolution. That is not evidence against the theory of evolution.
Try again.
<quoted text>
Faith, by definition, is not evidence. It is belief in spite of a lack of evidence.
Try again.
And you are the one that is claiming there might be some validity for gods. That puts the burden of proof upon you.
<quoted text>
I never ignored it moron. I pointed out that it was a stupid question from the start. Why would science want to test for god?
And telling you that you asked an idiotic question and showing how it is idiotic, which I have done multiple times, is not ducking your question.
<quoted text>
No I didn't you idiot. Now you are lying. I said if you want to claim something exists it is up to you to provide evidence. You are probably too dense to understand the difference.
<quoted text>
Wrong again. Time to pull your head out of your ass. It is not a trick. It simply shows how foolish your unsupported beliefs are. You want us to believe in your god that is not supported by evidence and yet you cannot explain how your god is different in any way from Russell's Magic Teapot.
what does all your name calling do for you besides make you look foolish. make you feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside? all tingly? LOL

when debating one must remember "it is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate.Ē name calling only shows weakness: General Henry M. Robert, U.S. Army- Roberts Rules of Order 1876.

there are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:
1) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponentís facts
2) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponentís logic
all other debate tactics(ridicule, names, etc) are intellectually dishonest: General Henry M. Robert, U.S. Army- Roberts Rules of Order 1876.

your favorite which you use all the time is argumentum ad hominem because you resort to name calling and attacking the person just as much if not more than the topic. pat yourself on the back. lol
wondering

Morris, OK

#121950 Sep 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
A source would have been nice. But even if you found one evolutionary change is not demanded by the theory of evolution. That is not evidence against the theory of evolution.
again I ask you where have I ever said evolution is wrong or posted anything and said it is evidence against evolution? that is just your made up bs because I don't 100% agree with you.

a source. it is called "google" look it up yourself.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121951 Sep 7, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that science cannot disprove God. I also think that this is not the core of the arguments on topix or anywhere else.
The argument is whether one should take seriously a bronze age account of God versus the evidence and theories of modern science. "God" is a possibility. "God" as represented in the Bible or Koran is an absurdity.
i agree the bible is full of stretched truths and ad elaborated on's to the stories. man still does those same things in this day and age. heII even science does that some.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121952 Sep 7, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that science cannot disprove God. I also think that this is not the core of the arguments on topix or anywhere else.
The argument is whether one should take seriously a bronze age account of God versus the evidence and theories of modern science. "God" is a possibility. "God" as represented in the Bible or Koran is an absurdity.
les try this again. with the right words.

i agree the bible is full of stretched truths and exaggerated add on's to the stories. man still does those same things in this day and age. heII even science does that some.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121953 Sep 7, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah the planet kolob is where he is...lol.
isn't it time for you to go do your nails. why your are at it get a pedicure and a foot detox. you will feel better after that. lol

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121954 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
what does all your name calling do for you besides make you look foolish. make you feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside? all tingly? LOL
when debating one must remember "it is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate.Ē name calling only shows weakness: General Henry M. Robert, U.S. Army- Roberts Rules of Order 1876.
there are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:
1) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponentís facts
2) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponentís logic
all other debate tactics(ridicule, names, etc) are intellectually dishonest: General Henry M. Robert, U.S. Army- Roberts Rules of Order 1876.
your favorite which you use all the time is argumentum ad hominem because you resort to name calling and attacking the person just as much if not more than the topic. pat yourself on the back. lol
What name calling? Calling an idiot an idiot is not name calling.

When you are losing terribly you always try to play the politeness card. When you think you are winning you like to call people "jackwagons". Now obviously we are not jackwagons. You cannot make the same claim about you being an idiot.

I started out very politely to you, but you decided to get stuck on stupid early on in the debate so I treated you that way.

Go back and look at the history of this most recent of debates.

If you don't like being called an idiot, don't be an idiot. When someone answers your questions don't lie and say that they did not. Especially when you have asked such stupid questions.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121955 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
again I ask you where have I ever said evolution is wrong or posted anything and said it is evidence against evolution? that is just your made up bs because I don't 100% agree with you.
a source. it is called "google" look it up yourself.
You are still stuck on stupid I see.

This is why I need to keep reminding you that you are being an idiot. You made a claim, it is up to you to defend it with a valid source. And don't pretend that you are not a creationist at heart. You have a creationist's approach in almost every post of yours here. Dishonesty is your only forte here.

Why not try to argue honestly for once? You will still lose but people will not treat you like an idiot.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121956 Sep 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What name calling? Calling an idiot an idiot is not name calling.
When you are losing terribly you always try to play the politeness card. When you think you are winning you like to call people "jackwagons". Now obviously we are not jackwagons. You cannot make the same claim about you being an idiot.
I started out very politely to you, but you decided to get stuck on stupid early on in the debate so I treated you that way.
Go back and look at the history of this most recent of debates.
If you don't like being called an idiot, don't be an idiot. When someone answers your questions don't lie and say that they did not. Especially when you have asked such stupid questions.
then lets make this short. calling you an arrogant asss would be fitting to you and not name calling then right? lol
wondering

Morris, OK

#121957 Sep 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What name calling? Calling an idiot an idiot is not name calling.
When you are losing terribly you always try to play the politeness card. When you think you are winning you like to call people "jackwagons". Now obviously we are not jackwagons. You cannot make the same claim about you being an idiot.
I started out very politely to you, but you decided to get stuck on stupid early on in the debate so I treated you that way.
Go back and look at the history of this most recent of debates.
If you don't like being called an idiot, don't be an idiot. When someone answers your questions don't lie and say that they did not. Especially when you have asked such stupid questions.
does science look for a god?
does science know how to test for a god?
does science know where to test for agod?
does science have tests for a god.

you only call them stupid because you are to much of a coward(it fits so it is not name calling) to answer them honestly because it will show your question of "show scientific evidence for a god" a moronic question.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#121958 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
does science look for a god?
does science know how to test for a god?
does science know where to test for agod?
does science have tests for a god.
you only call them stupid because you are to much of a coward(it fits so it is not name calling) to answer them honestly because it will show your question of "show scientific evidence for a god" a moronic question.
It's all in your head.

http://vimeo.com/22669312
wondering

Morris, OK

#121959 Sep 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You are still stuck on stupid I see.
This is why I need to keep reminding you that you are being an idiot. You made a claim, it is up to you to defend it with a valid source. And don't pretend that you are not a creationist at heart. You have a creationist's approach in almost every post of yours here. Dishonesty is your only forte here.
Why not try to argue honestly for once? You will still lose but people will not treat you like an idiot.
what claim did I make? the only claim I made is that we do not know if there is a god or not. you are the one that claims there isn't and you only claim that by what you believe and the argument from silence fallacy because your conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. you are a fallacy fool and don't even know it.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121960 Sep 7, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It's all in your head.
http://vimeo.com/22669312
does science look for a god?
does science know how to test for a god?
does science know where to test for agod?
does science have tests for a god.

i find it hilarious that you all duck, dodge and avoid these questions on the mere fact if you answered them it would make you look like fools when asking the creationists for scientific evidence for god. lmao.

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
A six word game (Dec '08) 39 min Trouser Cough 21,309
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 1 hr Trouser Cough 39,248
True False Game (Jun '11) 1 hr Mechanic 16,484
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 2 hr andet1987 7,414
Post "any three words" (Sep '12) 2 hr andet1987 4,952
3 Word Sentence (each word, one syllable only) (Jan '15) 2 hr andet1987 1,549
'Double Letter S' (Dec '12) 2 hr andet1987 1,561
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 hr River Tam 228,549
More from around the web