Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 204743 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.

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!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#122108 Sep 9, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
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.
Indeed. And those instructions say "evolve".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#122109 Sep 9, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Should I tell you something?
I don't like you.
Who cares..

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#122110 Sep 9, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
I don't know if he was naïve or stupid or both.
Yes.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#122111 Sep 9, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Should I tell you something?
I don't like you.
That really doesn't mean much because you don't like anybody.
FREE SERVANT

United States

#122112 Sep 9, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. And those instructions say "evolve".
This might be what evolutionists imagine. Why couldn't these instructions say "BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY AFTER YOUR OWN KIND"?

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#122113 Sep 9, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
...but we now know life is following instructions.
You say that with a lot of confidence. Ignorance must indeed be bliss.

Since: Jul 14

Location hidden

#122114 Sep 9, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
That really doesn't mean much because you don't like anybody.
That's wrong
I like myself.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#122115 Sep 9, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
That really doesn't mean much because you don't like anybody.
Not only that but he's doing his utterly very best to let all others here having a distaste of him.
Mostly, people try the other way.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#122116 Sep 9, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>This might be what evolutionists imagine. Why couldn't these instructions say "BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY AFTER YOUR OWN KIND"?
Because we observe all the features of evolution abundantly around us.
'Be fruitful and multiply after your own kind' is so obviously obvious that is says NOTHING.
Apart form this platitude we've discovered a LOT MORE about life.
For instance, life evolves.
This knowledge is NOT in the bible and points out to evolution.

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
2words into 2new words (May '12) 22 min Sharlene45 3,775
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 24 min Phaerae 16,393
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 32 min Mustang GT Girl 44,599
News 3 charged for allegedly blowing up turtle 48 min Parden Pard 2
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 1 hr Parden Pard 35,880
Make up your wildest Headline. (Aug '08) 1 hr Go Blue Forever 603
I Haven't Had____? In ages (Sep '12) 1 hr Mustang GT Girl 1,175
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 1 hr Mustang GT Girl 19,718
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Denny CranesPlace 59,698
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 6 hr wichita-rick 197,327
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 8 hr TheJerseyDevil 8,810
More from around the web