Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222247 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.

HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80892 Mar 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>What logic would lead people to vbelieve in some god myth that has no evidence of being real, or in the case of most people, a god myth that has been proven false?
there is no such logic as that.
I am not familiar with that god myth of which you speak.

I know that man came to speculate that The Almighty exists, AFTER EXPERIENCING REALITY.

It is the experience of natural processes that leads man to think that there is a God;

Therefore, the nature of the natural world is evidence in and of itself that The Almighty exists.

You need to be specific about those mythological gods you speak of...

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#80893 Mar 15, 2013
John777 wrote:
If evolution is true? Why did it stop. How come evolution is not happening today. How come there are still not apes turning into men and walking around with us now? Where are these half human half monkey species at today? I believe God created the world and created the "old" stuff in it, he did create time as we know it. Testing that says something is millions of years old can be true and God could have created it a s well to be old when he made it. Was not meant for our human minds to understand in this life.
Who says it stopped?

Among humans, I'd be willing to bet it has slowed since we now do more to control our environment and, for the most part, don't have to struggle for food.

We also have modern medicine and now those born with defects are much more likely to survive.

But evolution is a never ending process.

At least for as long as there is life which, on this planet, won't last forever.

Even our universe won't last forever.
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80894 Mar 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Spirituality. pure hokum.
Well I could say that the Dark Matter proposed by science is pure hokum too; because its existence can only be logically inferred.

But how is it that ones like you are ready to accept a thing that you can only logically infer; yet you cant see how the reality of The Almighty's existence can be inferred?

Is it that your capacity to infer just shuts the [email protected] down when its time to think of The Almighty?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#80895 Mar 15, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
another assumption to support your evolutionary theory.
like I said, just an assumption with no actual proof.
You keep conflating "proof" with "evidence".

That is patently dishonest.

I didn't think your god liked dishonesty.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#80896 Mar 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, you mean that guy who might not even have existed? Either way though since creationists tend to be big fat juicy liars I heard there was something about a 9 Commandment? Something about lying being a no-no. For some reason pretty much every creationist on here ignores that one.
The creationist "9th Commandment Explanation Guide" allows for exemptions in cases of lying to promote one's particular religious view. It also states that "lying by omission" is acceptable as long as one makes an genuine attempt to ignore any and all contradictory evidence. If one accidentally sees contradictory evidence, all they need do is intone "I didn't actually see that" 7 times with their heads raised to the sky and their arms outstretched in a symbolic tribute to Jesus. Other than that, lying is still a top 10 no-no
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80897 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
HOG, first I would like to know what you believe and why. I believe that the theory of evolution is very accurate.
I doubt that the accuracy of a concept is dependent on its concreteness; numbers are abstract concepts, and they are quite accurate and/or improve accuracy also.*shrug*
Subduction Zone wrote:
Yes, evidence can cut both ways. The problem for creationists is that it is very hard if not impossible to argue that the evidence supports creationism in any way at all.
Well, I also realized that YOU cant argue that the evidence refutes creationism in any way at all.

How do you prove that things were not "created" when they are standing smack dab in front of your eyes? You can even demonstrate how they were created in a lab.

We know things are created.

The only relevant question is; what is the true nature of the influences which did the creating.

You may argue that 'things' did the creation and not an individual(s).

But considering the fact that an individual is a type of thing; neither you nor the creationists would be wrong.

The debate must end in a stalemate, because cause is reason and intelligence becomes efficiency.

Hence there is no difference between that which works naturally and that which was intelligently designed.
Subduction Zone wrote:
My speciality is geology. Creationists have no explanation for the fossil record. Or perhaps I should say that any explanation they try to make has been easily debunked to date.
So once again, what do you believe and why? How old do you think the Earth is? Are you a YEC or an OEC?
Well, the fossil record is quite an interesting thing.

All the fossils in the world prove nothing, except that creatures lived long ago that had those physical features.

The similarities between the appearances of the remains of different organisms, does not have to be more than that; remains that have similarities in their appearances.

We know that every now and then, mutant genes produce some "differentiated" offspring. But that these mutations take the form of an on-going "evolution" is just your contribution.
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80898 Mar 15, 2013
Limbertwig wrote:
I think this post explains fossils best.
Quote - Evolution is simply mild adaption over a large amount of time. ALL fossils are "transitional" fossils. It amazes me that you are able to post a thread such as this, online, while denying the very mentality that made the internet possible. Sir, the irony isn't lost on me.- End Quote.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/barbourville-...
I have heard you redefine the terms in science so many times that I wonder how you nerds actually know what you are talking about.

Is evolution evolution; or is evolution adaptation?

If evolution is adaptation; then we could have done just fine without the mentioning of evolution.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80899 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not familiar with that god myth of which you speak.
I know that man came to speculate that The Almighty exists, AFTER EXPERIENCING REALITY.
It is the experience of natural processes that leads man to think that there is a God;
Therefore, the nature of the natural world is evidence in and of itself that The Almighty exists.
You need to be specific about those mythological gods you speak of...
pretty much most of them. the christian god of the bible ( the abrahamic one) is hte one i am most read up on.

no, the fact that nature exists is proof only that nature exists. nothing more. In no way does it suggest any god, gids or goddesses

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80900 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I have heard you redefine the terms in science so many times that I wonder how you nerds actually know what you are talking about.
Is evolution evolution; or is evolution adaptation?
If evolution is adaptation; then we could have done just fine without the mentioning of evolution.
this statement makes no sense...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80901 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I could say that the Dark Matter proposed by science is pure hokum too; because its existence can only be logically inferred.
But how is it that ones like you are ready to accept a thing that you can only logically infer; yet you cant see how the reality of The Almighty's existence can be inferred?
Is it that your capacity to infer just shuts the [email protected] down when its time to think of The Almighty?
No, in fact, its gravitational effects can be seen.

do not tryt o debunk things you don't really understand. you look foolish when you try.
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80902 Mar 15, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
The Dude, of course, speaks the truth....it has been proven...keep up.
What have you been proving, except that you are a [email protected] clown?

What is more logically sound to conclude after you observe two (2)different structures that have common parts:

A. That both structures were made under similar in similar processes

OR

B. That both are from the same object..?

Finding a million commonalities and relationships between men and apes will never prove that men are apes or that men evolved from apes.

You can prove that men and apes were created under the same condition or created by the same processes; but you can never prove that men are apes as such, nor anything of the sort.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#80903 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I could say that the Dark Matter proposed by science is pure hokum too; because its existence can only be logically inferred.
But how is it that ones like you are ready to accept a thing that you can only logically infer; yet you cant see how the reality of The Almighty's existence can be inferred?
Is it that your capacity to infer just shuts the [email protected] down when its time to think of The Almighty?
Wrong, Dark matter is no longer a proposition, its existence has been observed in several ways, measured and those measurements bare out 5/6th of universal mass predicted for it. Its effects on light can be seen simply by looking into the night sky, if you know what you are looking for. That was the trick, descoving what you were looking for

You see you can’t just say,“I don’t understand so therefore goddidt” and so any scientific evidence can safely be ignored (or worse, denied from the point of incredulity) because it screws up your belief. Adopt attitudes like that and you are stuck in the bronze age. Then how would you have been able to post on topix?

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#80904 Mar 15, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep conflating "proof" with "evidence".
That is patently dishonest.
I didn't think your god liked dishonesty.
In fact it is claimed that he disliked dishonesty so much he carved it in rock

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80905 Mar 15, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact it is claimed that he disliked dishonesty so much he carved it in rock
it came right after the commandemnts covering his own jealousy and insecurity...they topped the list.
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80906 Mar 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And this is where you fail. If this were correct EVERY imagined concept would be equally valid. This is not the case. The reason being the scientific method.
No.

I dont see that every imagined concept would be equally valid if that were correct.

Explain yourself.

Nevertheless, the scientific method does not prove anything nor validate anything.

The scientific method is an attempt to REDUCE BIAS; but the reduction of bias and the human ability to experience absolute reality are two different things.

Or is it that whatever has been approached with the scientific method is automatically valid and accurate?
I swear you keep jabbering about that scientific method crap as if it makes a difference.

There are only two objective unambiguous answers in all of existence: YES and NO.

Either a this IS or that thing NOT.

No amount of procedure and 'methodologizing' can get around that simple IS or NOT, YES or NO.
The Dude wrote:
Yes, just like we only have a working knowledge of gravity, but even today it is not completely understood. Despite this our knowledge has enabled us to send spacecraft to other worlds.
<quoted text>
Totally superfluous to the discussion. I could give a rat's @ss where you send your space craft...
The Dude wrote:
Ah, the "How do YOU know? Where you THERE?!?" argument. There's a reason why they roll their eyes in court every time they hear this one.
Meaningless.

Let them roll their eyes till they fall from the sockets.
But if YOU were not there; you cannot know beyond the shadow of a doubt what occurred,so we have all authority to ask "Where YOU THERE!?"

If you were not there, all your conclusions and descriptions will be dependent on evidence the way YOU choose interpret it...
The Dude wrote:
You misunderstanding of terminology is why you fail.
You have resorted to the confusing of terminologies (that only you seem to be able to understand)to attempt to make us fail.
The Dude wrote:
A two-dimensional universe is logical. We can have mathematical models of it and you can throw all the numbers you like at it and it will still be logical and internally consistent. But a two-dimensional universe is inconsistent with reality. Logic, like math, is dependent upon axioms. Axioms are arbitrary. So while logic can work it doesn't mean it's describing reality. Reality has to be tested by practical means. And if reality coflicts with your logic then your logic is simply wrong. Like heavier objects falling faster than lighter ones was thought to be logical until it was scientifically tested.
Anything can be logical.

The validity of a logical argument is based on what the premises are.

As long as the conclusion is consistent with the premises of an argument, the argument is logical and sound.

LOGIC DOES NOT DEPEND ON AXIOMS; BUT AXIOMS DEPEND ON LOGIC.

You are thinking backwards and being utterly nonsensical.

You say that reality must be tested by practical means; but show me the practical thing that is not logical.

Logic is the fundamental means of testing reality; because at no point in time are we able to perceive the entirety of reality.

The side of reality that is undetectable by human senses can only be related to and measured through logic.
The Dude wrote:
As it is, there is a logical reason why you believe in God.
I REST MY CASE.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80907 Mar 15, 2013
HOG, perhaps I was too nice earlier.

There is massive evidence for evolution. There is no scientific evidence for creation.

Of course I am cheating a little bit there since I used the specific term "scientific evidence". Scientific evidence is a well defined term. It means evidence that supports or attacks a scientific theory or hypothesis. No creation "scientist" is willing to make a testable "hypothesis of creation". A "hypothesis of creation" would not need to show how God created the universe. It would only need to describe some of the features that we see of the universe through the paradigm of creation.

Again, no creation scientist is willing to make such a testable hypothesis. And you cannot even think of developing a theory with going through the hypothesis stage first. That shows that the scientists on your side know they are advocating for a falsehood.

Evolution can explain the fossil record.

Creation can't.

Evolution can explain our DNA, especially the nested hierarchy that is found.

Creation can't.

Evolution can explain ERV's.

Creation can't.

When it comes to science you will find that the chorus is "creation can't".
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80908 Mar 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>pretty much most of them. the christian god of the bible ( the abrahamic one) is hte one i am most read up on.
I doubt that you are most read upon Him; you dont even seem to have any literacy skills.

Furthermore, to say that you are "most read up on" Him says nothing; you could have read only one sentence about other gods and read only one paragraph on Him then make that claim.

If you were sufficiently literate and had actually read to any length; you would not call Him a myth.
woodtick57 wrote:
...no, the fact that nature exists is proof only that nature exists. nothing more.
But if The Almighty Created nature, then It is a part of nature; hence Its Potentials will be demonstrated in nature. And you cannot dispute the existence of power.

Hence:

"1The heavens declare the glory (success/efficiency) of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork. 2Day to day utters speech, and night to night shows knowledge." [Psalm 19:2]

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80909 Mar 15, 2013
And though HOG may be more intelligent than our average creatard here, he is still dishonest.

He obviously believes in creation by a god of some sort but he will not go into any details of his belief.

Trying to play coy is not being honest. We cannot have a civilized debate if one side is not fully honest from the start.

Also, science can refute a claim if it is well enough defined. He is playing the I won't be specific so you can't debunk my claims game. Another dishonest ploy.

So yes, science cannot "prove" anything. It cannot prove that the universe was made last Thursday complete with false memories and fake evidence. But to believe that is a fruitless belief.

What science can do is tho show how ideas "work". As an idea evolution "works" creationism doesn't. It is a very useful too that is guiding present day medicine, is used in oil exploration, is used even in modern day engineering. Creation as a science is not used in anything.

Creationism does not "work".

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80910 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt that you are most read upon Him; you dont even seem to have any literacy skills.
Furthermore, to say that you are "most read up on" Him says nothing; you could have read only one sentence about other gods and read only one paragraph on Him then make that claim.
If you were sufficiently literate and had actually read to any length; you would not call Him a myth.
<quoted text>
But if The Almighty Created nature, then It is a part of nature; hence Its Potentials will be demonstrated in nature. And you cannot dispute the existence of power.
Hence:
"1The heavens declare the glory (success/efficiency) of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork. 2Day to day utters speech, and night to night shows knowledge." [Psalm 19:2]
in fact i know quite a bit about many religious cults. this is why i can say with certainty that the god of the bible is a myth. note that I am not saying it disproves any god ever,t hat is impossible, but the god of the bible cannot be as described.

when you start with the supposittion "If the allmighty created nature.." you are not showing evidence of anything. you are making a suppostion not based on any facts.
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80911 Mar 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>No, in fact, its gravitational effects can be seen.
No you do not know the source of the gravitational disturbances; thats why you associate them with a "Dark" matter.

The term "Dark" is used to represent the ignorance of its true nature.

So you dont know whether the thing which you have identified is the actual thing that exists.

And until you can whip up a pound in a scoop and drop it "PLOP!" on the laboratory table; you cant talk to me as if you know what it is.
woodtick57 wrote:
...do not tryt o debunk things you don't really understand. you look foolish when you try.
Do not try to prove the reality of things that you dont know. You ARE foolish when you try.

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.

Louisiana Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is Rev. Gabriel Swaggart Teaching False Things? (Jul '14) 5 hr John 11
Jimmy Swaggart Ministries Faces New Scandal (Aug '11) 5 hr John 609
News Bridge jumper wanted in murder cases (Aug '11) Sat fele37 11
News Dispute over music leads to shooting (May '08) Aug 11 JaddaaB 3
News 6 JonBenet Shows and TV's Rush to True Crime: A... Jul 23 Tex- 3
hey black folks (Nov '15) Jul '17 Unfortunately whi... 4
It's soo sad man, whats happened to Lousiana si... Jul '17 Thank God For Life 1
More from around the web