Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223289 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.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#122088 Sep 8, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Itís all plastic to me
Some say 'a good man is hard' to find and some say 'a hard man is good to find'...
Too many jokes.

I don't think they are all plastic, but fair enough.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#122089 Sep 8, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite sure how to define the most powerful, the US certainly have big numbers but China has around double the active personnel, 4 times the reserves and 10 times the paramilitaries. India and Russia also have considerably more manpower. What makes the US powerful is expenditure, technology, media and they are shouty but Iím not so sure that the pentagon Ďbig upí shout filterers down to the guys that actually do the slog. The world has changed dramatically in the last 100 years and without the alliances of Nato most of the western military machines would be pretty inconsequential.
Itís is quite sad (although I have benefited*) that the Bush hate the French campaign was so widely accepted by the right over your side of the pond. All because the French were not willing to bow to Bush as our Blair did (and what a name and legacy Blair earned for himself). One thing Bush failed to recognise is that France has the highest Muslim population in Europe and no president is going to go on a gung ho and alienate 10% of his voting public. Another is that France is a fairly left wing country anyway (despite the recent rise popularity of the NF) and right wing policies are in general anathema to them
As bush once said, "The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur."... chuckle, you are a fellow countryman so tell me, did he do this sort of thing on purpose to appeal to the dumbos or was he really as thick as he made out?
*My benefit, very high class French restaurant (accolades and stars abounded) in New York was hit hard by the anti France rhetoric. Within 5 weeks of the freedom fries saga (Note French fries were actually a Belgian invention) they had gone from a full house every night to broken windows, kicked in doors, graffiti scrawl and the show stopper, threats of violence to their children. All good American fun I am told. They could not even sell up but simply locked up shop and moved back to France to open a rather astounding restaurant close to my place there. Example, the beef stew using medallions of ribeye steak with aged cognac sauce and seasonal veg is truly amazing, the best beef stew I have ever tasted.
I'm not either. What constitutes a great military has changed over the last, 200 years and the last 2000 years. The point is that sooner or later it is someone else.

Yeah we spend a lot of money on guns and soldiers. I have to say that we go overboard, but I support a strong military and all that it provides. Britain isn't exactly weak in that area either.

Alliances are important, but inconsequential is a bit extreme I would think.

Bush may well be the worst president we ever had. Not just his foreign policy record or his disastrous domestic economic destruction, but he was the first president that was actively anti-science. Despite that, I have agree with our taking action in Afghanistan and completely disagree with the invasion of Iraq. I think Bush thought we would just go in there, kick ass and everyone would be throwing roses at us and democracy would wash across the Middle East. I don't know if he was naÔve or stupid or both.

I thought that whole freedom fries crap was a childish bunch of nonsense by some puffed up ultra-conservatives. A country where we value personal freedom gets pissed off because of the French people exercising their personal freedom.

Anyway, time has moved on and now we have bigger messes as legacy.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#122090 Sep 8, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
We all (well most) have to deal with the bad boys in whatever way we can, itís the way of the world
More info, ISIS is no longer ISIS, they have renames to become IS, short for Islamic State.
It will be a better world when they are WAS.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#122091 Sep 8, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. And that is a very important point. If there was evidence that could support a creationist framework then creation scientists ( I can't help but to laugh when I type that ) could come up with a "hypothesis of creation".
.
At least one of us is amused.

Is it that when you use words they have diffrent meaning that when other people use them?

Have you ever heard a creationists framework?

Briefly describe it and demonstrate its flaws and inconsistencies which are not shared by evolution theory or whatever framework there is.

When you say "hypothesis of creation", in what sense do you mean; The Creator's hypothesis of creation or man's hypothesis of creation or man's hypothesis of The Creator's hypothesis?
Subduction Zone wrote:
Remember such a hypothesis does not need to explain how creation happened, only why we observe the life that we do from a creationist perspective. They have not been able to do this since they very quickly run into contradictions from the evidence that debunks their ideas.
It takes nothing for a person to make the claims you do or any claim whatsoever.

...when you ask creationists to account for "why" we observe the life we do etc, you are being unreasonable as a scientist. To say the least, the question is scientifically meaningless.

Because you know (or I assume you do, for you ought to) that science does not attempt to answer "why"; INSTEAD it attempts to discover how.

The question of "why" is regarded as being of a philosophical nature.

Furthermore, that some of the ideas put forward by creationists have been debunked does not mean that the realities they are trying to describe do not exist... scientific theories are debunked by science every now and again.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#122092 Sep 8, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Enforcing will by military might will always be seen as fascist dictatorship by those the imposition is being forced on at the point of a gun, not democracy.
Exactly. In the Middle East though, it seems to be seen as an act of Satan. But tomato, tomahtoe. Satan or fascism. Neither is a good image.

It just strikes me that all the big brains we have working on foreign policy, no one thought that the implementing that idea in a place with such a long history of wars, religion, kingdoms and tribes would be a wasted effort.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122093 Sep 8, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
At least one of us is amused.
Is it that when you use words they have diffrent meaning that when other people use them?
Have you ever heard a creationists framework?
Briefly describe it and demonstrate its flaws and inconsistencies which are not shared by evolution theory or whatever framework there is.
I know of no current ones. Any of their attempts in the past failed badly. And if they had such a framework you should be one of the first ones to post it here.
When you say "hypothesis of creation", in what sense do you mean; The Creator's hypothesis of creation or man's hypothesis of creation or man's hypothesis of The Creator's hypothesis?
It need not be about the act of creation itself. The bar is nowhere near that high. All that your side has to do is to explain why we observe life in the way that we do today in light of a creation event. They have failed every time that they have done this.
It takes nothing for a person to make the claims you do or any claim whatsoever.
...when you ask creationists to account for "why" we observe the life we do etc, you are being unreasonable as a scientist. To say the least, the question is scientifically meaningless.
Because you know (or I assume you do, for you ought to) that science does not attempt to answer "why"; INSTEAD it attempts to discover how.[/QOTE]

What? No far from it. It is an extremely reasonable question. One the evolutionary biologists have answered. Your side cannot seem to answer it.

[QUOTE]
The question of "why" is regarded as being of a philosophical nature.
Furthermore, that some of the ideas put forward by creationists have been debunked does not mean that the realities they are trying to describe do not exist... scientific theories are debunked by science every now and again.
Not in the form that I put it. You are making it an over generalized "Why". Mine was a very specific "Why?" Your complaining shows that you have nothing too and are afraid to admit it.

Petal Power

“It's a New Dawn”

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#122094 Sep 8, 2014
Hmmmm..
YO Rocket Scientists..
Ya Think the SUPERMOON was CREATED.."as is"..OR..EVOLVED from a STARDUST "Speck"????

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#122095 Sep 8, 2014
Petal Power wrote:
Hmmmm..
YO Rocket Scientists..
Ya Think the SUPERMOON was CREATED.."as is"..OR..EVOLVED from a STARDUST "Speck"????
Perhaps you fell and bumped your head?
The Dude

UK

#122096 Sep 8, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
*Irony meter explodes*
Stop asking me to do your work for you.
I bear the burden of proof: you bear the burden of disproof.
Nevertheless, since the nature of God as you are imagining is undefined (in this forum) there is nothing to know about him.
<quoted text>
They must necessarily be.
They are both rationalizations.
I don't have any burden of disproof, especially when you're unable to come up with a testable hypothesis in the first place. As for the second bit I agree that religions tend to be rationalisations. Therefore I accept your concessions again. Twice.
The Dude

UK

#122097 Sep 8, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I never made that assertion. I am asking for scientific data to support the assertions on this thread.
No you're not.
The Dude

UK

#122098 Sep 8, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text> That is why I question why someone would ask for scientific evidence for something (G-d) which can't be measured with science.
However the root of all your objections to scientific reality come from your ideas about god. Plus you already invoked IDCreationism as part of your objections. All you do is invent unrealistic scenarios so you can say "what if" even though there's no reason to take your objections seriously in the first place. You're too dishonest to have a rational conversation with.
The Dude

UK

#122099 Sep 9, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
All of that just means one thing: the evidence that you have gathered fits into a particular framework that they have in their minds.
The thing is; the evidence also fits into other frameworks.
Only if they have an alternative scientific explanation that makes testable scientific predictions that pass the scientific method. Otherwise your other "frameworks" are nothing but apologetics rationalisations or bs that steal them from valid scientific concepts after the fact. E.g. Messy's "common design hypothesis" which merely takes evolutionary predictions while calling them its own. Then further, refuses to be analysed because either the one who proposed it doesn't want it to be falsified or it's non-falsifiable itself.
The Dude

UK

#122100 Sep 9, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
But if the same object/s that were in the past are the same objects that are being observed and examined today; WHY THE PHUCK ARE REFERRING TO THE CONTEMPORARY?
Contemporary as opposed to what; Old fashioned?
What types of evidence do you expect to get from the past; new evidence?
If you are asking for newly discovered evidence, I will honestly say that there is none that *I* have heard of.
Nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence that such a person as Jesus existed.
The evidence has been examined by skeptics and their interjections (i.e. those of the skeptics) have been accurately and effectively refuted most if not all the times.
So you claim, even though you don't seem to even understand what contemporary means. We have dino fossils so we have contemporary evidence of their existence. We don't have Jesus remains because he allegedly got up, walked away, then flew up to heaven. Then all the historic accounts are from people who were born AFTER all this was supposed to have happened. And most of those didn't even believe the Jesus stories either. That's like getting a second hand story about Superman saving the world from a guy who doesn't think Superman had super powers even if he tentatively accepts some guy ran around in a cape.

But like I said, I don't CARE about the existence of some old preacher. That would only prove the existence of a preacher, not that some wizard made the universe. You can have your Jesus for all I care, it makes no difference to the point at hand.
The Dude

UK

#122101 Sep 9, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
And with that you could send an innocent man to jail; simply because of the "evidence" you have experienced/witnessed.
The man could in fact have been trying to assist the man who was stabbed prior to his arrival on the scene.
<quoted text>
Why dont you?
Doesnt the evidence point to him?
Is his hand not on a weapon plunged into the chest of a dead man?
What if the handle of the knife is covered in blood, so that no other finger marks except those of the man holding the knife are present; will it be possible to prove his innocence?
Dead men tell no tales and all you have is the word of the suspect, so all you have is the word of the suspect.
The man holding the knife may in truth be the murderer as well as he could in truth be one hoping to save a life; AND WHICHEVER IS SUGGESTED, THERE WILL BE COMPELLING EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST.
It is only logic which will drive us to slither through the cracks in ignorance with equality and guide us to what we SHOULD be looking for in order to arrive at the TRUTH.
<quoted text>
No you idiot!
YOU ARE THE ONE USING EMPIRICISM.
You are the one asserting the scientific thus you accept a priori that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience/s.
My viewpoint most reflects the viewpoint of RATIONALISM, which is essentially that reason/logic is the main source and means of testing knowledge.
You dont even know what you are talking about.
How can you reason with me?
I can't reason with the unreasonable. You claim evidence should be ignored in favour of rationalisations, but you have no objective way of determining which rationalisations are valid. If you keep things at this philosophical level the concept of God will forever remain non-verifiable. The obvious appeal it never can be falsified. But then your rationalisations for a god are no more valid than those against. You make a philosophical argument for, atheists make one against. You make another argument to counter, they do the same. And so on. But in the end both of you produce nothing practical. Science does. That's what makes it better.

By the way, the man was stupid enough to put his hand on the knife. He got his fingerprints on there and could have made the wound worse. He should have called an ambulance straight away. That way he would have been seen helping instead of looking incriminating. If he goes down because he's stupid then it's his fault.
The Dude

UK

#122102 Sep 9, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
At least one of us is amused.
Is it that when you use words they have diffrent meaning that when other people use them?
Have you ever heard a creationists framework?
Briefly describe it and demonstrate its flaws and inconsistencies which are not shared by evolution theory or whatever framework there is.
We do that every single day here. Their claims fall into one of only two categories - non-verifiable apologetics, or simply wrong anti-reality BS.
The Dude

UK

#122103 Sep 9, 2014
Petal Power wrote:
Hmmmm..
YO Rocket Scientists..
Ya Think the SUPERMOON was CREATED.."as is"..OR..EVOLVED from a STARDUST "Speck"????
I think you're still on the wrong forum.
The Dude

UK

#122104 Sep 9, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Furthermore, that some of the ideas put forward by creationists have been debunked does not mean that the realities they are trying to describe do not exist... scientific theories are debunked by science every now and again.
The fact science takes new evidence into account and alters its conclusions is a strength of science. It's what separates science from religious dogma.

Creationists don't describe reality. All they do is spend their time placing limits on the Almighty.
FREE SERVANT

United States

#122105 Sep 9, 2014
Evolutionists escape the facts when confronted with things that actually exist. In all reality the natural world is ordered and set into intelligently designed arrangements. Darwin imagined what might have been what he was observing, but we now know life is following instructions. This is observable and not imagined.

Since: Jul 14

Location hidden

#122106 Sep 9, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You pretty funny. I like how I get you morons to jump like frogs.
Should I tell you something?

I don't like you.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#122107 Sep 9, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
So you tell the ladies it isn't short it is just concise.
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
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 5 min Ricky F 35,352
True False Game (Jun '11) 23 min Emerald 16,245
Yes, I got back on! 29 min Emerald 7
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 32 min avon5735 12,716
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 40 min Hoosier Hillbilly 11,633
News Woman accused of placing dead rat in restaurant... (Jul '08) 40 min Sarah 2nd Grade 26
Play "end of the name"... (Jun '15) 57 min Hoosier Hillbilly 3,659
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 3 hr Alain Vain 16,602
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 5 hr Sharlene45 227,333
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 7 hr Camilla 6,999
More from around the web