Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223191 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

Macclesfield, UK

#51194 Oct 8, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear POTUS Starky; I have enjoyed your jousting with the adherents of the religion of evolution.Good job.
He was jousting?

.

What, on a chicken??
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51195 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks.
As President, its not my job to make the rules, its my job to figure out how to break them.
Absolutely!

For if you notice, Bo is posting unregistered...

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#51196 Oct 8, 2012
Yes! But Bo was respectful of the office of President Starky.

:)

"Stuff's gettin better"
2012

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#51197 Oct 8, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>This guy is just a troll.
He is!
And his fanatical need to disprove creation by embracing junk science is nearly as dangerous as the religion of animals who flew planes into buildings in NYC.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51198 Oct 8, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has everything to do with math and statistics. Have you every heard of statistical thermodynamics. Math underpins all of science.
Sorry. Incorrect. Science is math, physics, chemistry. APPLIED math CAN help - that is, using math whose axioms attempt to match up with reality, but math alone is NOT science. Math is an abstract. It is a language, not a science. And as such language does not have to conform with reality.
Johny wrote:
Creationists understand that "machines" created by man, God or anyone else does not pose a problem for thermodynamics.
I very much doubt that there is any published peer-reviewed scientific paper on thermodynamics that mentions "God" in any way. Or any other field for that matter.
Johny wrote:
The problem arises when you say the machines are created naturally! The Second Law of Thermodynamics defines what that "naturally" would be.
Actually thermodynamics has little to say on these matters, as it's generally about heat transfer.
Johny wrote:
We see that nature has a definite direction that does not lead to more complexity outside the statistically probable - e.g. snow flakes don't count for they are expected when temperatures are low enough.
Ah, so complexity is dependant on a lack of heat? How exactly is "complexity" measured?
Johny wrote:
There have been a number of thought experiments that would suggest that it could be demonstrated!
Either the experiment was performed, or someone thought about doing it and didn't bother.(shrug) What experiments are those and what are they supposed to demonstrate?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51199 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
Yes! But Bo was respectful of the office of President Starky.
:)
"Stuff's gettin better"
2012
Reality does not respect reality deniers. Besides, being dishonest (as you were) is not respectful. So in other words you wanted special privileges to be treated like a cool dude while acting like a typical fundie. Or, you knew exactly what reaction you'd get and use it as an excuse to bring out your martyr complex and act like a typical fundie.

Just like every other fundie.(shrug)

We couldn't give a flying fig about your baseless religious opinions, or your martyr complex. We're only interested in what you can demonstrate. But since what you can demonstrate is little more than a large ego, fundamental misunderstanding of science (heck, even Johnny knows more about thermodynamics (the argument even other creationists is stupid) than you do, and he's using it wrong), and your ability to copy-past, I very much doubt that evolution will be in danger any time soon from your gifted insight.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51200 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
He is!
And his fanatical need to disprove creation by embracing junk science is nearly as dangerous as the religion of animals who flew planes into buildings in NYC.
Funny, they were fundamentalist religious YEC's who thought they knew more about God than anybody else. Just like you.
bohart

White Pine, TN

#51201 Oct 8, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
He was jousting?
.
What, on a chicken??
Of course! what else would you ride jousting with fools.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51202 Oct 8, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
He was jousting?
.
What, on a chicken??
Hm.

Apparently so.

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/obj...

(shrug)

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#51203 Oct 8, 2012
What inference is that?
Johny wrote:
The statement of the second law start off with a negative - e.g. It is impossible for a cyclically operating device to convert thermal energy to mechanical energy by use of one thermal reservoir. Although we can never prove the statements absolutely, since it has always been shown to be true, we can infer the veracity of the statement.
No statement about the real world can be "proven absolutely".
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51204 Oct 8, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course! what else would you ride jousting with fools.
I see your scientific knowledge and ability to partake in a coherent rational debate keeps improving every day!

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#51205 Oct 8, 2012
Johny wrote:
We see that nature has a definite direction that does not lead to more complexity outside the statistically probable
Then it would be impossible for an adult organism to develop from a single cell.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#51206 Oct 8, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course! what else would you ride jousting with fools.
I was on Big Bird.
He's moonlighting.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Santa Fe, NM

#51207 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Sir.
I don't know what you're talking about but it sounds way more logical than the religion of evolution.
:)
Let me see if I've got this right.

Evolution is a patriarchal system of sexual repression with invisible flying Jewish magicians pushing people around.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51208 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
I was on Big Bird.
He's moonlighting.
http://www.freakingnews.com/We-Love-Big-Bird-...

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#51209 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama wasn't looking at the floor during the debate.
He was looking at his hands.
Romney had just handed him his own ass.
"Stuff's gettin better"
2012
According to Fox News columnist Sally Kohn, vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan's speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday "was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech."

"On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold," Kohn wrote.

In a surprising move, Fox News joined CNN, The Huffington Post, the Washington Post's Wonkblog, and ThinkProgress in publishing a fact-check of the Republican vice presidential nominee's speech, finding that the speech was full of lies and misleading assertions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/fox -...

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#51210 Oct 8, 2012
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>This would be a LIE!

Why do you "fundie xristian creotards" LIE so much?

Isn't LYING a sin in your religion?

I know I read a commandment about it somewhere.

Say "hi" to ha-Satan for us when you get to Hell.
Athiest is a Religion.

You must believe with out proof that God does not exist.

Believe with out proof is faith.

The dictionary says the word Religion can be substituted for the word Faith.

So you are here Preaching your religion.

That would kind of make you a preacher in the house of A thiest.

That's FACT!

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#51211 Oct 8, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>Science has everything to do with math and statistics. Have you every heard of statistical thermodynamics. Math underpins all of science. Creationists understand that "machines" created by man, God or anyone else does not pose a problem for thermodynamics. The problem arises when you say the machines are created naturally! The Second Law of Thermodynamics defines what that "naturally" would be. We see that nature has a definite direction that does not lead to more complexity outside the statistically probable - e.g. snow flakes don't count for they are expected when temperatures are low enough. There have been a number of thought experiments that would suggest that it could be demonstrated!
"The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Dembski is an idiot. He's a mathematician, not a scientist, and not a very good one. Thermodynamics doesn't work the way creationists think it does otherwise you would not be alive to talk about it (for some reason they love to make up BS why evolution is wrong and inadvertently destroy all life on Earth, or sometimes the entire universe) and as for ID? It is so far undemonstrated. "

E=MC^2

Looks like math.
Smells like math.
Taste like math.

I think it is math you Fi(ken MORON!

"Perhaps the most devastating, non-scriptural argument against Evolutionism and for the Truth of the Bible and Creation is that of the Second Law of Thermodynamics."

http://objectiveministries.org/creation/slot....

What a Dolt

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#51212 Oct 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, please try to follow along. You required proof of a positive, that cannot be given in science. You can sometimes provide proof that something is wrong. So you can never prove a theory to be right, and that is what you were demanding. You can prove it to be wrong.
I know that is probably a difficult concept for your pointy little head. Keep trying, in about a year or two you should get it.
There is a critical flaw in your reasoning Sub Zone I explained it to you last night. The convergence of evidence proves it within reasonable doubt. But falsifiability means nothing is absolute.
But to by all methods of explanatory power known by men.

Evolution..and many other things are proven by scientific investigation. Learn the phrase and realize the strength.
Consilience is proof but nothing is absolute.

Consilience is enough to know and not guess or believe.

Science brings this convergence "in some cases" but not all.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#51213 Oct 8, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd prefer it if you didn't indulge in scientific abstractions. It's kind of like watching a chimp smoke a cigarette. They don't have a clue. It's harmful to them. They just see others doing it.
Then there's the irony factor.
Chimps smoke for the same reason humans do, it's addictive.

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.

Bobby Jindal Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News How would Jesus christ handle the border kids? (Jul '14) Sep '17 Baby Jesus 15
News The Year's Craziest Right-Wing Conspiracy Theor... (Jul '15) May '17 Geezer in the Casket 7
News 'Duck Dynasty' Star Ditches Bobby Jindal For Do... (Sep '15) Mar '17 Missy 11
News How strict should public school letter grades b... (Feb '17) Feb '17 Cfnm 2
News Jindal Twists Himself In Knots Over Question On... (Jun '15) Jul '16 Obsession 3
News Will Americans say - No we can't' to the idea o... (May '16) May '16 Three Days 1
News James Gill: As Jindal sees it, Trump is all Oba... (Mar '16) Mar '16 wild child 1
More from around the web