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.

KJV

United States

#36650 Aug 6, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>What are you asking for proof for then? You've already admitted that the evidence doesn't matter, so even when we do provide evidence (which we don't really have a problem doing) you just point to your faith and say you believe otherwise.

So what? We don't care about your faith.
Your side claims it has all the proof. Let's see it.

Like the singularity that existed before the big bang.

The facts are this singularity having gravity of unheard of strength could not just start expanding! It's Impossible. As soon as the laws of physics take hold like one billionth of a second after the big bang then gravity would have held or pulled this singularity back together and stopped time again.

Science deals with facts - them are the facts. and science is ignoring those facts.

Pre big bang singularity and then the big bang just could not have happened.

Common physic laws prove this.

Your science doesn't know if it's coming or going. Science needs to stick to the facts and not make up this crap that just could not have happened.
KJV

United States

#36651 Aug 6, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Creationism is a theory?!?

When the heck did that happen?

Gravity is also "just" a theory...
Idiot!

"Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how DIVINE or metaphysical matters are thought to work. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings."
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#36652 Aug 6, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
What is it that you think a "scientific theory" is?
scientific theory [function(]

systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical laws regarding regularities ...(20 of 360 words)
www&#8203;.britannica& #8203;.com&#8203;/E&#8 203;Bchecked&#8203;/topic &#8203;/528971&#8203;/ scientific-theory

Since: Aug 12

Tucson, AZ

#36653 Aug 6, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I'll hold you to your request.
<quoted text>
A scientific theory is indeed an explanation. You're right about that.
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as an explanation that is "completely accurate or proven".*Any* explanation may turn out to be wrong. Scientists are always looking for *better* explanations.
<quoted text>
Scientists do not try to "prove" any scientific fact or scientific theory. Instead, they try to *support* facts and theories with evidence. In some cases, a fact or theory can be *disproven* and replaced or improved.
again thx for not being a dick and having a calm rational convorstaion lol i think people get a little to heated in here and let there emotions get the best of them lol. i think that we both agree on evolution as being the best explanation for the existnace of human beings (ur notes where helpful thank u) but i dont know what is stopping it from becoming a fact rather than a theory with all the evidence to support it. to me its hard to believe that with all the evidence pointing to its almost certainty why is some holy book (which is one of many) holding it back that would be like saying that evolution is wrong because everyone knows that the giant turtle climed out of the sea with the earth on its back and thats how we came to be
KJV

United States

#36654 Aug 6, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Actually you are incorrect. Evolution can and has been demonstrated.

The two concepts are not equal.
"Evolution can and has been demonstrated. " CSL

"evolution is not something we can observe. If it's happening today, it's going too slow to observe. If it happened in the past, we can't return to the past to see. It may be a fact of history, but how would we know?"

"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
KJV

United States

#36655 Aug 6, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Actually you are incorrect. Evolution can and has been demonstrated.

The two concepts are not equal.
"Well evolution is a theory. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. Did humans evolve from ape-like ancestors? whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered or not at all is unproven today"

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. "Theory"
can only mean a possibility.
KJV

United States

#36656 Aug 6, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Gravity has not been "proven". Which is why Einstein's THEORY of relativity came along later on and did the job better.

Even though it's "only" a theory.

So I take it you're another mook who doesn't know what the word 'theory' means in a scientific context and just assumed it meant wild-azz guess?
But Einstein's THEORY of relativity has been proven false so why do you still call it a theory?
KJV

United States

#36657 Aug 6, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>Punctuation is a wonderful thing.

Use it, please.
So are you are what like an English teacher?

Typical atheist, find someway to sidetrack the the debate and focus on something that really has nothing to do with the topic.
KJV

United States

#36658 Aug 6, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing wrong in saying you don't know; however, creationism is not a scientific theory. It is not on the same footing as evolution.
Hey Satan Junior - where in that post did it say "Scientific" Theory?

Here's a clue for you it's called a definition:

"Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are thought to work. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings."

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#36659 Aug 6, 2012
Atlas12a wrote:
i dont know what is stopping it from becoming a fact rather than a theory with all the evidence to support it.
Facts are not "proved theories".

But perhaps these words written 30 years ago by R.C. Lewontin will be helpful:

"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#36660 Aug 6, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
But Einstein's THEORY of relativity has been proven false so why do you still call it a theory?
You make a complete ass of yourself everyday denying the truth. All to save your little concept of a magical skyfairy.
Eventually you will run out of lies and hiding places.
Relativity has not been proven false, evolution is a fact. Abiogenesis is a separate issue from evolution and it is still the best explanation where life came from. You can argue till you turn blue , it will absolutely not change these facts, you will be dead and buried , evolution relativity and abiogenisis will still be theory's and the best explanations and there will still be no skydaddy.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#36661 Aug 6, 2012
KJV wrote:
"Well evolution is a theory. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty."

Gee, you have absolutely no shame in misquoting someone, do you? Here is the *restored* sentence (the key sentence you omitted):

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty."

Funny that you would omit the sentence "It is also a fact".

[QUOTE who="KJV"]"In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. "Theory" can only mean a possibility.
Where did Gould ever say "theory can only mean a possibility"? It is not the next sentence that appears in his writing.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#36662 Aug 6, 2012
KJV wrote:
But Einstein's THEORY of relativity has been proven false so why do you still call it a theory?
When was it proven false?

Since: Aug 12

Tucson, AZ

#36663 Aug 6, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Well evolution is a theory. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. Did humans evolve from ape-like ancestors? whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered or not at all is unproven today"
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. "Theory"
can only mean a possibility.
to say that it is just a theory is correct but right now ur argument is he same thing as putting up one theory vs another to say that a supernatural being put everything here could be considered just a theory it maybe a religion but there are not facts supporting the idea of a "god" saying a word and all of a sudden there was everthing in the universe if u do any reseach religion and the belief of a god or many gods it was their way of explaning the way the world worked at the time i.e. if u pray enough or make a good enough sacrifice it will please god (or the gods depending n what time or religion u look at) and he will bring rain we know now that that isnt true or that the entire universe rovolved around the earth, really ur argument is only putting up on theory against another

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#36664 Aug 6, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Incorrect , in layman's terms the word is used such . But as a scientific determination it is the highest level of explanation citing the truth supported by evidence by a consensus of supporting scientists. It is also openly testable to be falsified but standing unchallenged in this respect. Such is a scientific theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =ItxVLu8J_d0XX
But really, a theory is just a guess, right?

LOL!

How many times can you tell them what it takes to become a scientific theory and the ignore you every time!

Then they come back with, "Well, I have a theory that my gods created everything! Now you have to teach that in public schools!"

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#36665 Aug 6, 2012
Atlas12a wrote:
<quoted text>to say that a supernatural being put everything here could be considered just a theory
Damn, some people are thick! Only morons think that is a theory!
KJV

United States

#36666 Aug 6, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>You are incorrect here. Evidence is *exactly* what matters to scientists.

PS: We don't 'believe' in evolution. We accept the Theory of Evolution to be the best explanation for the diversification of life.
"You are incorrect here. Evidence is *exactly* what matters to scientists."

Where is the evidence of the singularity that existed before the big bang? This is a scientific theory so where is that evidence?

Where is the evidence of life forming from the puddle of goo. Life starting on it own on this planet is a scientific theory where's the eveidence?

String theory - failed!
Quantum Mechanics - failed!
The Theory of Relitivity - failed!

Big Bang theory? Nothing exploding and creating everything. Ya right!

Evolution theory? All life on Earth evolving from an auto starting speck of life. Ya right.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#36667 Aug 6, 2012
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
But really, a theory is just a guess, right?
LOL!
How many times can you tell them what it takes to become a scientific theory and the ignore you every time!
Then they come back with, "Well, I have a theory that my gods created everything! Now you have to teach that in public schools!"
If stupid was a crime fundies would get a 100 years.

Since: Aug 12

Tucson, AZ

#36668 Aug 6, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Facts are not "proved theories".
But perhaps these words written 30 years ago by R.C. Lewontin will be helpful:
"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
that was helpful thank you and i do agree to me it makes sense and is the most logical explaination so why is it so hard for other people to grasp again i dont believe in discriminating against anyones religion but i think if u do believe in god u can believe in both creation and evolution i.e.theistic evolution i dont however i think if i did belive in a god that would make more sence to me than all of a sudden the universe just appeared because god said do (y does everyone say goddidit as one word lol) if u look up what christopher langan says about creation and evolution it makes more sense to me than christianity i do like to study religion a lot and i really think christianity is one of the most bogus religions out of all sorry got kinda off topic, any thought?

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#36669 Aug 6, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"You are incorrect here. Evidence is *exactly* what matters to scientists."
Where is the evidence of the singularity that existed before the big bang? This is a scientific theory so where is that evidence?
Where is the evidence of life forming from the puddle of goo. Life starting on it own on this planet is a scientific theory where's the eveidence?
String theory - failed!
Quantum Mechanics - failed!
The Theory of Relitivity - failed!
Big Bang theory? Nothing exploding and creating everything. Ya right!
Evolution theory? All life on Earth evolving from an auto starting speck of life. Ya right.
See what I mean, Atlas12a?

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.

Biology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mitosis Feb 17 Jennifer 1
News The Green Movement Is Lily White. Thata s a Pro... Feb 17 youll shoot your ... 1
tRNA as a ‘translator’ Feb 13 K_N_R 1
Iona and Lipid Bilayer Feb 13 KatalystKatya 1
News A bizarre find: Tiny powerhouses in your cells ... Jan 28 Lara la Rue 2
New Life Discovered that Lives Off Electricity Jan '18 Stephen 1
News Microbiologist: Mankind may be extinct within 1... (Jun '10) Dec '17 Jorge 63
More from around the web