Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 168736 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.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#36679 Aug 6, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I *DID* say "please".

BTW, just to point it out, YOUR response -- correcting my "sidetracking",-- had "nothing to do with the topic", either.

Congratulations, hypocrite.
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#36680 Aug 6, 2012
Atlas12a wrote:
<quoted text>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
"In short, the fossil record shows that living species emerged suddenly and perfectly formed, not by following a process from primitive forms to advanced ones as evolution claims.

Evolutionists have tried very hard to find evidence for their theory or so, but have actually proved by their own hand that no evolutionary process could have been possible. In conclusion, modern science reveals the following indisputable fact: Living things did not emerge as the result of blind chance, but God created them."

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#36681 Aug 6, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"In short, the fossil record shows that living species emerged suddenly and perfectly formed, not by following a process from primitive forms to advanced ones as evolution claims.
Evolutionists have tried very hard to find evidence for their theory or so, but have actually proved by their own hand that no evolutionary process could have been possible. In conclusion, modern science reveals the following indisputable fact: Living things did not emerge as the result of blind chance, but God created them."
Only in your dismal funditarded mind.
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#36682 Aug 6, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Now making an ass out of myself would be Backwards evolution. But you making an ass out of you would truly be evolution.

"Abiogenesis is a separate issue from evolution"

To a point!
Evolution starts with the first speck of life and creating everything from that. Even if God created that speck.
But an Athiest belief in evolution kind of combins them both don't you think?
Try real hard and you might just be able to add 2+2.
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#36683 Aug 6, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>When was it proven false?
"BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"

These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.

Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.

As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down."
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#36684 Aug 6, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>When was it proven false?
"From Nova:

"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.

RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...

LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...

LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...

RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.

So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?

Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense"
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#36685 Aug 6, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>Where did Gould ever say "theory can only mean a possibility"? It is not the next sentence that appears in his writing.
I didn't quote Gould.
I quoted Mashia.
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#36686 Aug 6, 2012
Atlas12a wrote:
<quoted text>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
Again let me try and make this clear.
Theist are ridiculed for thier Faith or thier believe in God ( believe with out proof ).
By people who they themself believe in a lot of ridicules scientific theory's with out any proof. And even still believe's in failed what was once scientific theory's

Just Telling it like it really is.
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#36687 Aug 6, 2012
Atlas12a wrote:
<quoted text>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
Yes the universe is from God speaking the word. That's all it took his spoken word. And you choose to ridicule him.

Once a soul is created it will always exist. God tells us there are only two places that exist for that soul to go to after death, one God created "Heaven" the other always existed "Hell".

All the rest of your lame post has been answered many time over.
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#36688 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!"
"Let's first clarify the difference between a theory and a fact. When it comes to science, a theory isn't just a thought where we imagine something. When people think of the word theory, they are often thinking in the terms, "I have a theory." But in science that doesn't qualify as a theory. Something isn't a scientific theory until it has enough strong evidence to back it up and make it a reasonable assumption. Evolution doesn't qualify as a theory."

"In this sense, evolution does not qualify as a theory. A theory allows you to go back and make modifications when an error is discovered. This is not possible with evolution. The premise can’t change or it ceases to be evolution. Evolutionary study can NEVER draw any other conclusion other than evolving life and remaining within the box. That is why evolutionists must call it a fact. If it is not a fact, they have no foundation. They can’t admit defeat without abandoning ship. Therefore, even if the facts don’t support it, they tenaciously defend their position. Evolution can’t even be accurately called a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess that is followed by experimentation to prove or disprove the assumption. Evolutionists do make many educated guesses, but the experimentation can’t be honestly evaluated. It either gives the results they want, or it is tossed out. The results can’t be allowed to contradict the ‘fact’ of evolution because they can’t go back and make the necessary corrections. The end result has already been determined and anything that does not support its foundation or point to the evolutionary destination cannot be accepted."
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#36689 Aug 6, 2012
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>Damn, some people are thick! Only morons think that is a theory!
So you're an expert on morons?

Takes one to know one I guess.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#36690 Aug 6, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Again let me try and make this clear.
Theist are ridiculed for thier Faith or thier believe in God ( believe with out proof ).
By people who they themself believe in a lot of ridicules scientific theory's with out any proof. And even still believe's in failed what was once scientific theory's
Just Telling it like it really is.
My turn.

Atheists (or in my case, Agnostic), for the most part, could care less about the the personal beliefs of other individuals or cultures, UNLESS they seek to impose their beliefs upon others.

Look into The Wedge Document.

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2008/...

Or at Wiki....or Google.

Enlighten yourself.

The threat is there.
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#36691 Aug 6, 2012
Atlas12a wrote:
<quoted text>kjv, if u dont mind me asking what religion are u and have u ever looked up theistic evolution if so what r ur thoughts?
I am not religious.
Yes I have looked up theistic evolution.
I believe it is in contradiction to Genesis

"(If you are a Christian please ponder this deeply with an open Bible and prayer.)
Genesis 1-9 purports to be history rather than poetry or mythology. Writers throughout Scripture, particularly in the Psalms and the New Testament, treat it as history, as did our Lord. Genesis is more quoted in the rest of the Bible than any other book. If the early chapters of Genesis are allegory, what about the walls of Jericho, Jonah and the great fish, the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Christ? At what point do you say,“But that I can’t believe?”
Unless the world was originally created “good” it is difficult to see how man could “fall” From what state did he fall? If Adam was derived from some pre-existing hominoid what is the significance of sin? If there was no historic fall, why is there need of a Saviour?
Adam was told that the penalty for sin would be death, but what thrust had that if millions of animals, including hominoids, had died over thousands of years? In both Old and New Testaments sin is repeatedly coupled with death:“The wages of sin is death,” Romans 6:23. Adam’s sin is specifically linked with death in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. In the latter passage it is certain that physical death is intended. If death occurred before Adam sinned the total Gospel is negated, including our hope of the resurrection.
The evolutionary method involving violence, pain and death is totally out of keeping with the character of God as revealed in Scripture. Our God is a God of joy, peace and love. He destroyed the Earth at the time of Noah because it was filled with violence. The Lord said,“I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them”(Genesis 6:7). It is noteworthy that it was the violence of animals as well as man that God deplored.
Atheistic evolutionists have difficulty accounting for altruism. Where do love and philanthropy come from in a world evolving by chance mutation and natural selection? Theistic evolutionists have a problem too. If God used the evolutionary method, then He is the author of pain and suffering and evil. God becomes a devil. Only an initially perfect world, created by a loving God but ruined by the entrance of sin can account for both the good and evil which we find around us.
The origin of many basic doctrines can be traced to the first chapters of Genesis. For example, it is impossible for the narrative of the creation of Eve and out of Adam—woman out of man—to be anything other than fanciful mythology or historic truth. At least seven fundamental Biblical doctrines are linked with the last three verses of Genesis 2, the passage which recounts the creation of Eve"
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#36692 Aug 6, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>I *DID* say "please".

BTW, just to point it out, YOUR response -- correcting my "sidetracking",-- had "nothing to do with the topic", either.

Congratulations, hypocrite.
I was aware that I was opening the door for that response.
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#36693 Aug 6, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Only in your dismal funditarded mind.
And in every fossil found.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#36694 Aug 6, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I was aware that I was opening the door for that response.
Yeah. I'm sure you did (nudge-nudge)

How about this gem?
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not religious.
Yes I have looked up theistic evolution.
I believe it is in contradiction to Genesis
"(If you are a Christian please ponder this deeply with an open Bible and prayer.)
Genesis 1-9 purports to be history rather than poetry or mythology.
But you're "Not religious".

R - I - G - H - T -!

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#36695 Aug 6, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Let's first clarify the difference between a theory and a fact. When it comes to science, a theory isn't just a thought where we imagine something. When people think of the word theory, they are often thinking in the terms, "I have a theory." But in science that doesn't qualify as a theory. Something isn't a scientific theory until it has enough strong evidence to back it up and make it a reasonable assumption. Evolution doesn't qualify as a theory."
"In this sense, evolution does not qualify as a theory. A theory allows you to go back and make modifications when an error is discovered. This is not possible with evolution. The premise can’t change or it ceases to be evolution. Evolutionary study can NEVER draw any other conclusion other than evolving life and remaining within the box. That is why evolutionists must call it a fact. If it is not a fact, they have no foundation. They can’t admit defeat without abandoning ship. Therefore, even if the facts don’t support it, they tenaciously defend their position. Evolution can’t even be accurately called a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess that is followed by experimentation to prove or disprove the assumption. Evolutionists do make many educated guesses, but the experimentation can’t be honestly evaluated. It either gives the results they want, or it is tossed out. The results can’t be allowed to contradict the ‘fact’ of evolution because they can’t go back and make the necessary corrections. The end result has already been determined and anything that does not support its foundation or point to the evolutionary destination cannot be accepted."
Now you are outright lying and you know it. Is that what your religion teaches you to do LIE?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#36696 Aug 6, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Atlas12a wrote:
This is a reply to everyone
I know evolution is has been proven through nature "
Evolution has not been proven!
"The theory of evolution maintains that life on Earth came about as the result of chance and emerged by itself from natural conditions. This theory is not a scientific law or a proven fact. Underneath its scientific façade it is a materialist worldview that Darwinists are trying to impose on society. The bases of this theory, which has been disproved by science in every field, are suggestions and propaganda methods consisting of deceptions, falsehood, contradiction, cheating, and sleight of hand.
The theory of evolution was put forward as an imaginary hypothesis in the context of the primitive scientific understanding of the nineteenth century, and to this day it has not been backed up by any scientific discovery or experiment. On the contrary, all the methods employed to confirm the theory have merely proven its invalidity.
However, even today many people think that the theory is a proven fact, like the force of gravity or the law of buoyancy. Because, as stated at the beginning, the true nature of the theory of evolution is very different from what is usually supposed. For this reason, some people do not know what rotten foundations this theory has, how it is disproved by science at every turn, and how evolutionists are trying to keep it alive in its death throes. Evolutionists have no other support than unconfirmed hypotheses, biased and unrealistic observations, and imaginary drawings, methods of psychological suggestion, countless falsehoods, and sleight-of-hand techniques."
You keep forgetting that Evolution says absolutely nothing about the beginning of life...so that part of your argument is forever gone to you...you may not use it again.

As far as whats left of your argument here...you are wrong and you know it. evolution is well proven and its tenets are useful and used in science everyday. You are flat out lying when you say otherwise.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#36697 Aug 6, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"The fossil record represents another crushing defeat for the theory of evolution. Among all the fossils discovered over the years, there is not one trace of the intermediate forms that would be necessary if living things were to have evolved stage by stage from simple species to more complex ones, as the theory of evolution claims. If such creatures had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. If these intermediate forms had ever really existed, their numbers would be even greater than the number of animal species we know today, and everywhere the world should be full of their fossil remains. Evolutionists look for these intermediate forms in all the feverish fossil research that has been carried out since the nineteenth century. However, there has been no trace of these intermediate forms, despite all the eager searching for the last 150 years."
We have plenty of intermediate fossils and the recent DNA/Neanderthal match-up with humans means we're pretty much not looking for the 'Missing Link' anymore...we now know we ARE descendants of the great apes. Also, with the DNA we now KNOW there was no Adam and Eve.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#36698 Aug 6, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
Now you are outright lying and you know it. Is that what your religion teaches you to do LIE?
The fact that most of KJV's posts are quoted frm AiG and the like suggests that he's not even bright enough to make up his own lies, but must borrow from groups that are experts at dishonesty.

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.

US House of Representatives Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 6 min neveratfault 3,514
News Religious liberty is rallying cry after gay mar... 11 min DaveinMass 125
News Area Religious Groups Join Social Justice... 24 min DCF and other Mon... 9
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 25 min LeDuped 186,220
News More lawmakers endorsing flag change 34 min Remove MLK Signs 12
News Donald Trump's comments on immigration complica... 1 hr Mothra 8
News 9 dead in 'hate crime' shooting at S.C. church 1 hr xxxrayted 392
More from around the web