Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 219597 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

#76250 Feb 16, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it is most likely we are in a computor simulation. It would explain why there are no waves, that would result from a big bang.
Waves in what?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76251 Feb 16, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Will three historical references do the trick?
Nicolas Flammel (c. 1330-1418) was a French scrivener.
Legend shrouded Flammel with supernatural powers by people living in the Seventeenth Century, not by J. K. Rowling.
Paracelsus (1493-1541) was a German Swiss astrologer.
Henry Cornelius Agrippa (1486-1535) was a German astrologer and alchemist.
All three historical figures are mentioned in the Harry Potter books.
You say that if King Herod was an actual person, that proves that the entire Bible is true?
Then if Flamel, Paracelsus, and Agrippa were actual people, why doesn't that prove that the Harry Potter novels are true?
Thanks for that. Since I haven't read any Harry Potter there was no way I was gonna know if she mentioned actual historical people.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76252 Feb 16, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
"Back on topic, if evolution is false why are so many genes homologous between a human being and a rabbit for example? Why is it that we are able to grow human recombinant proteins in e. coli bacteria?"
The answer is that simply we are made of the same building blocks as anything else in this self sustaining ecosystem. I would be surprise if there were not genes that are homologous. In creationism, everything is made the same way, the only thing that differentiates life from non life in creationism is that God breathed life into living creatures. We agree that physically we are a creation, the same as animals, why then would there NOT be homologous genes? Such is necessary for survival on earth. Goodness, such a shallow argument! There are even millions of beneficial bacteria living in us that also provide the same benefits in animals. Nothing is different or exceptional about the physical body of man except that god breathed life into him.
You are claiming common design. Also known as taking credit for evolution after the fact. There are a number of problems with your position:

Similarities due to inherited DNA from parents is evolution scientifically observed. DNA is therefore a biological record and measure of how closely related all life is to each other. Therefore creationists require an arbitrary barrier to prevent evolution from going too far, which is why so many creationists find Young Earth Creationism attractive. YECism is pure denial of reality.

But then, denial of evolution is also pure denial of reality.(shrug)

Also, ONLY evolution predicts nested hierarchies. For example, evolution can predict on the likelihood of organisms such as centaurs, mermaids, pegasus, sphinxes, or organisms with feathers and three middle-ear bones. Yet ALL of those are making use of common components found elsewhere in nature. So why can't God make them? Why can't God make horses with wings? Or pigs with compound eyes? Common design, right? If God CAN make these things then creationism makes NO predictions about homology, genes, common design - because God can do what it likes. A world with Centaurs? God just made it that way. A world without Centaurs? Then God just made it that way. It's scientifically useless. No scientific predictions can be made in regards to biological phenomena. Evolution predicts fossils of these are possible because it would be a violation of nested hierarchies. Surely God is not so limited?

On the other hand, if God DID use "common design", AND was limited only to nested hierarchies, then that leads to another problem. Common design is used ONLY to save on both time and resources. Something an eternal all-powerful creator has an infinite supply of. Therefore if God is limited by nested hierarchies then I would like to know exactly what other limits it has and how all God's limits were determined in an objective manner via the scientific method. This would be quite difficult since there is currently no way to scientifically verify that such an entity even exists.

There may or may not be a God. But if it did, it used evolution.

Or God is a liar.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76253 Feb 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong on two levels. First you did not pick one of the supplied answers. It seems that you meant to pick C. You might have missed my second post where I specifically said the Commandments carved into stone.
I guess Langoliers does not know his Bible. I will see if he gets the correct answer the second time around.
Hey, if you say the Bible allows A, B, C or D, can't Lango say "E"???

What kinda silly rule is that?!?

:-/
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76254 Feb 16, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Hence the insults. But actually can any insult or disprove God? no one!
Chuck, how many times do I have to tell you that we are under no obligation to falsify non-falsifiable non-scientific concepts?

Are you being dishonest (again) or are you just demonstrating your daftness (again)?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76255 Feb 16, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> These people were mentioned based on permissions from them or their families.
Can you provide evidence of this? Can you also provide evidence that it's even necessary?
Charles Idemi wrote:
There are no archaeological confirmations for Harry Porter unlike the Bible.
You're lying. I gave them to you. You moved the goalposts and demanded historical people instead of historical places. He gave them to you. There ARE archaeological confirmations of Harry Potter, JUST as you demanded we provide.

In short, you're a big fat hypocritical dishonest typical fundie liar for Jesus.

And you know it.

By the way, the Egyptians still got you beat.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76256 Feb 16, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I will not blame you over this response, spirituality or simply spiritual matters is/ are not your strong suit.
When it comes to spiritual matters there's no such thing as right or wrong. No-one's religious opinions are any better than anyone else's, period.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Do you believe in the law of Karma or Retribution?
Even the bible said so, " the wicked shall never go un punished ".
Many people have lied using the name of God as a cover or shield.
Yup. You included.

That's why you lie all the time.

Because you're just another fundie with a monumentally massive ego who thinks that you can lie as much as you like and God will give you a get out of jail free card.

This is why fundamentalist morality is an oxymoron.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76257 Feb 16, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I have been observing your perversive comments. Now listen and listen very good, humans only take charge while on earth, for just a definite period, but after that, death and judgement.
God has his own ways of dealing with us all.
If you really believed that I'd advise you to start paying attention to the 9th Commandment...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76258 Feb 16, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Subtles, i would say that is your own level of ignorance. You or any one else, can not disprove the existence of God.
You cannot disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And you know this. That's why you didn't even try.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76259 Feb 16, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Answer the question, how did the universe came into existence or form?
I want a vivid or clear response in English.
No you don't.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76260 Feb 16, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Foul!
That is a dishonest comments from you, i knew what he meant, but i decided to let him know some certain things beyond his memory.
It's not a dishonest comment from him.

EVERYTHING is beyond your memory because any fact which is inconvenient is automatically deleted from Chuck's mind.

You wanted VALID archaeological evidence of Harry Potter.

You claimed real places backed up the Bible and so were provided with real places that backed up Harry Potter.

Then you claimed that you asked for PEOPLE even though you DID NOT.

Then you were GIVEN archaeological evidence of people that backed up Harry Potter.

You then LIED YOUR BIG FAT AZZ OFF and said that all this evidence was insufficient, even though it is JUST as valid as YOUR evidence for the Bible.

I also pointed out to you 6 MONTHS AGO that the Egyptians STILL outweigh the Bible with archaeological evidence, including both places AND people.

You have since wiped it from your memory just like you always do.

Just like you did when you started talking about Roman historians backing up Jesus even though we've demonstrated that they do not. MANY MANY times over on THIS very thread.

Why do you fundies always lie so much, Chuck?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76261 Feb 16, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And again, others do worship this God through gods, goddesses, mediums, etc.
God is just one, others are minors.
Your claims are baseless. You have no way of knowing if Vishnu is in fact the real big daddy.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76262 Feb 16, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
What does Richard Dawkins, a mortal, understood about the origin of the universe?
Not much, since he's a biologist and not a cosmologist.

And I bet he still knows a trillion times more than you.

Other than how to speak English, the education you've demonstrated thus far on this thread is less than zero.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76263 Feb 16, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
It might 'appear' to be flat at this time, with current scientific understanding...the same as the earth was consider flat at one time but was later discarded...
Never the less...why aren't the obvious intrinsic intelligent processes that govern the Universe never addressed by science?
Because they aren't obvious.

That's why you can't demonstrate them.

Neither can the scientific community.
xxxooxxx wrote:
These processes are the very foundation in the belief in God.
But yet, science refuses to look at the actual processes behind the Universe...
Ah, so you are aware of SCIENTIFICALLY OBSERVABLE AND VERIFIABLE processes which the ENTIRE scientific community does NOT?

Interesting.

Please elaborate.
xxxooxxx wrote:
Science just calls these processes "natural" ("Existing in or caused by nature")but never really questions the actual processes directly.
Why?
They do question them all the time.

YOU are the one who claims there are OTHER processes which they are somehow unaware of.

Yet somehow you always FAIL to point them out.

Did you forget that I asked you a ton of times over to present us with evidence of IDC and all you did was point me to things that humans made?

And yet you still haven't appeared to understand the problem you have...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76265 Feb 16, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is an ideology, that for the most part is anti-religion...
No it isn't. That's why plenty of religious people are scientists.

In fact we've pointed this out to you months ago.

The fact you're repeating this lie means you're a liar.

If science is mere "religious ideology" then stop taking medicine, stop using your computer, stop going to the shops, using your car, anything. Go back to living in the woods and go hunt for your own chickens.

You won't because you're a hypocrite.
xxxooxxx wrote:
There are really only two ways to look at the creation of the Universe...either it is the result of a inconceivable intelligence ...or it somehow magically manifested itself out of nothing?
So which is more rational?
Actually there are more than two ways. Here's some more:

1 - The universe has always been here in some form or another.

2 - The universe manifested itself by NON-magical means.

3 - The universe manifested itself by a CONCEIVABLE intelligent agent, such as (a) God or Gods.

Rather amusing that in one post you're claiming that there's conceivable scientific evidence for the intelligent creation of the universe and in the very next post you're arguing that it's INconceivable.

If it's INconceivable then you have no case. Because you cannot conceive of it. QED.

In my humble opinion? If such an entity exists, this thing creates entire universes in its spare time as a hobby. There is NO WAY humans are gonna have a hope in hell of comprehending such an entity.

Fundamentalist ego presumes otherwise. And not only that, but that said entity made the entire thing just for them.

Whoooowaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76266 Feb 16, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"
Observer effect (physics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_...
"However in quantum mechanics, which deals with very small objects, it is not possible to observe a system without changing the system, so the observer must be considered part of the system being observed."
..."and God saw that it was good."
omnipresent...
Adjective:
1. Present everywhere at the same time.
Luke 17:21
"nor will they say,‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”
Ah, quantum woo. Note that in actual quantum mechanics it does not *require* an external observer, only that any such observer (such as humans) would be a part of that system. And the problem with those observers, as demonstrated by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, is that the observation itself causes a change which then makes the *complete* actual state of the system unknown. Which is why one can only know either the direction OR the position of a travelling particle but NOT both. For the observation would add energy to said particle thus affecting both position and direction. This causes a paradox for would-be quantum-woo loving creationists.

And funny, once again XO claims science is "anti-religion", and here she tries pretending that science supports her creationist position.

Never let it be said that fundies are not hypocritical.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76267 Feb 16, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
William A. Dembski
Shame that Dumbski is a mathematician, not a scientist. And doesn't know a thing about biology, chemistry, or physics. Oh, and I'm sure the fact that he's just another dishonest fundie liar for Jesus apologist is just a coincidence.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76268 Feb 16, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”
&#8213; Michael Denton
Ah, still that old chestnut. The fact that Denton accepts evolution and doesn't hold the same fundie views as he used to has not stopped fundies from quoting him from his old days. And unlike you, they likely knew that but still quoted him anyway.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76269 Feb 16, 2013
zander714 wrote:
The refusal to acknowledge intelligent design in the universe laughable.
One cannot refuse to acknowledge what has not been presented.

So by all means, I'm all ears. I shall ask you the same question that I've had no answer for for 7 years:

What exactly IS the "scientific theory" of IDC?

I thank you in advance for not answering.

Don't worry though. Even the mooks who made it up haven't been able to answer it either. In fact they also admitted they don't have one.

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#76270 Feb 16, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
“Not only Herod many other biblical characters have been verified archaeologically.
Others not yet discovered can not make the bible to be false.
The bible once again, is real!"
I love the way you are claimining conclusive evidence through inductive reasoning.
The final chorus from the Bach Saint Matthew Passion is in c minor.
The Bach Passacaglia and Fugue is in c minor.
The Mozart piano sonata, K 457, is in c minor.
The Haydn piano sonata, Hob. 16-20, is in c minor.
The Schuber piano sonata, D 958, is in c minor.
Beethoven's Fifth Sympony is in c minor.
Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata is in c minor.
Brhams' First Symphony is in c minor.
The Burgmuller Ballade, op. 100 no. 15, is in c minor.
#3 and #6 of "Buds and Blossoms" by Cornelius Gurlitt are in c minor.
"The Doll's Burial," #7 in the Tschaikovsky Album for the Young is in c minor.
The Chopin mazurkas op. 30 no. 1 and op. 56 no. 3 are in c minor.
The Chopin prelude op. 28 no. 20 is in c minor.
The Chopin nocturne op. 48 no. 1 is in c minor.
The Chopin Revolutionary Etude is in c minor.
The Saint-Saens Organ Symphony is in c minor.
Rachmaninoff’s Second Piano Concerto is in c minor.
Mahler’s Second Symphony is in c minor.
It’s not just classical music, either.
“As Long As You Love Me” by Justin Bieber is in c minor.
"Could It Be Magic” by Barry Manilow is in c minor.
"Fireflies” by Owl City is in c minor.
"Judas” by Lady Gaga is in c minor.
"Rolling in the Deep” by Adele is in c minor.
"Skyfall” by Paul Epworth is in c minor.
"Turn Me On” by David Guetta is in c minor.
"Paparazzi” by Lady Gaga is in c minor.
"Where Have You Been” by Rihanna is in c minor.
Wow! Look how many musical compositions I’ve listed!
And they’re all in c minor!
I guess that proves that every musical composition ever written is in c minor!

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 strict should public school letter grades b... Feb 6 Cfnm 2
News 'Duck Dynasty' Star Ditches Bobby Jindal For Do... (Sep '15) Jul '16 Death on 2 Legs 10
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
hole (Jan '16) Jan '16 aaron 1
News Duck Dynasty' Stars Introduce Adopted Son in Sp... (Jan '16) Jan '16 Ritual Habitual 1
More from around the web