Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 168711 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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#29034 Jun 1, 2012
yessir wrote:
<quoted text>
IF it did take billions of years...why do you consider that negates the possibility of a designer?
It has to do with the claims that others have made regarding this supposed creator for which there is no evidence, whose methods cannot be demonstrated, and whose nature is in dispute among those who claim it exists.
drink the hive

New York, NY

#29035 Jun 1, 2012
Although Bucky Would Applaud Your Use Of Geodesic' 2 Measure The World...

&fe ature=related
Hoosier Hillbilly

Marengo, IN

#29036 Jun 1, 2012
Did you know that an air molecules moves approx. the speed of a 22 shot?
JEWISH MARXIST LIES

Podgorica, Montenegro

#29039 Jun 1, 2012
Evolution is Jewish Marxist lie...Protocols of Elders of Zion qoute...We Jews will push Evolution,Feminism,Socialism and Liberalism on stupid goy.
yessir

New York, NY

#29041 Jun 1, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>First, the universe follows laws, but is far from ordered. Quantum physics only compounds that notion by stating we can't even predict half of what's going to happen when we get smaller, it does not support order at all.

You also fail at probability on such a massive scale. Any chance is still a chance and nothing is impossible, except when discussing history because that is just what it is, it's past and already happened, therefore it will not change just because you want it to.

You also confuse abiogensis with evolution, two different concepts, neither dependent on the other. Evolution happens, we see it in the fossil record, we see it in modern day, we see it in DNA, get over it, it happens. Without evolution, the variety of life, nor how it changes, makes no sense, that is why it's such a strong theory, it explains things. If you want to disprove it, find something that makes more sense and can help humans instead of hold us back like creationism.

Evolution has a 100% chance of happening, because it has happened, it is part of the historical record and therefore set in stone, literally.

Abiogenesis is up for debate, but not impossible, and no scientific mind would call it a theory at this time, it is a hypothesis and only got that far because they have figured out how the self replicating systems can and will arise in primordial Earth conditions. But as to how it became cells, well, no one knows yet.
Perhaps the term 'precision' connotes more clearly my meaning, but the precision and order of our universe is undeniable. I've already given several examples where this is evident. Another example is the use of strict and rigorous mathematics to explain even that which we cannot see.

But don't conflate 'precision and order' with 'simplicity'. Elegant yes, simple no.

I don't confuse abiogenesis with macroevolution, but intellectual honesty requires that we confront the logical derivations and consequences of our preferred assumptions. This inescapably requires consideration of origin.

Biology has happened. Many have grown comfortable (and I think intellectually lazy) with the notion that macroevolution adequately explains HOW it happened. It doesn't, and those who choose intellectual honesty over treasured assumptions are able to acknowledge this.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#29042 Jun 1, 2012
yessir wrote:
<quoted text>
Did it? Most are satisfied with this time estimate but when competing theories that better explain our observations are not given an honest review by the scientific community, everyone suffers from conclusions that are based upon potentially flawed assumptions.
The problem with your "competing" theories is that invoke magic to answer problems in their claims.

For example:
We have observed radio active decay rates as stable. Even if they were unstable at a previous time, the amount of energy released would not change, just the time frame in which it was released.

So, ASSUMING that the unobserved claim from Creationists that radioactive decay is variable is true, they STILL need to explain how anything exists on an Earth which would still be molten from the amount of radiation given off in the time needed to vacate it.

To this they invoke a 2nd magic trick.

So, not only do we have variable decay rates (unobserved) we also have vanishing energy (unobserved & unobservable) to explain their alternative timeline.

MAYBE, MAYBE, MAYBE science would forgive ONE speculation in ONE part of ONE aspect of the timeline.

But when even a simple piece like RAD has at least two large speculations, you can't seriously expect to be treated as a real claim.
I'm persuaded by some compelling evidence in astrophysics that provides a better explanation for several of the phenomena we observe in the universe and in nuclear physics. It so happens that billions of years is not necessary to well explain the things we observe.
If you invoke magic.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#29043 Jun 1, 2012
yessir wrote:
<quoted text>
IF it did take billions of years...why do you consider that negates the possibility of a designer?
Let me turn this around.

If you are going to make claims about a designer and you can not offer DIRECT evidence of a designer, then you have to rely on inferred evidence.

If you are relying on inferred evidence, then it is NECESSARY for the person making such claims to be able to clearly delineate between "evidence for" and "evidence against".

So, what timeline would be UNACCEPTABLE under the "Designer" model?

If the Universe turned out to be 400 billion years old, would that be evidence for or against a designer?

If the Universe turned out to be 400 years old, would that be evidence for or against a designer?

Is there ANY version which would NOT be considered evidence "for" a designer?
yessir

New York, NY

#29045 Jun 1, 2012
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, but the Anthropic Principle is not science. It is philosophy (at best) and rather poor quality philosophy at that. It is something that might inspire a freshman philosophy major, but is too shallow to hold anyone's interest for very long.
Condescension notwithstanding, I acknowledge that the logical conclusions of the Anthropic Principle have philosophical implications, but those implications don't negate the scientific observations. If you're more comfortable attributing these scientific realities to chance, rock on. Personally however, I'm not satisfied with an explanation of 'chance and coincidence' since these are probabilistically impossible whose acceptance requires blind faith.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#29046 Jun 1, 2012
yessir wrote:
<quoted text>
Condescension notwithstanding, I acknowledge that the logical conclusions of the Anthropic Principle have philosophical implications, but those implications don't negate the scientific observations. If you're more comfortable attributing these scientific realities to chance, rock on. Personally however, I'm not satisfied with an explanation of 'chance and coincidence' since these are probabilistically impossible whose acceptance requires blind faith.
What scientific observations are those? The universe is suited to our life form? The actual scientfic obsevation is that humans are suited to the universe they evolved in.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#29047 Jun 1, 2012
yessir wrote:
Biology has happened. Many have grown comfortable (and I think intellectually lazy) with the notion that macroevolution adequately explains HOW it happened. It doesn't, and those who choose intellectual honesty over treasured assumptions are able to acknowledge this.
Why do you equate "intellectual honesty" with making shit up? I think it's " intellectually lazy" of you to assume that things can't happen without your favorite form of Magic.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#29048 Jun 1, 2012
JEWISH MARXIST LIES wrote:
Evolution is Jewish Marxist lie...Protocols of Elders of Zion qoute...We Jews will push Evolution,Feminism,Socialism and Liberalism on stupid goy.
Go away until you grow up and get some education, Freaky Guy.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#29049 Jun 1, 2012
Hoosier Hillbilly wrote:
Did you know that an air molecules moves approx. the speed of a 22 shot?
Would you care to translate that into English?

No such thing as "an air molecules." (sic)

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#29050 Jun 1, 2012
yessir wrote:
<quoted text>
Condescension notwithstanding, I acknowledge that the logical conclusions of the Anthropic Principle have philosophical implications, but those implications don't negate the scientific observations. If you're more comfortable attributing these scientific realities to chance, rock on. Personally however, I'm not satisfied with an explanation of 'chance and coincidence' since these are probabilistically impossible whose acceptance requires blind faith.
Whether or not you find them satisfactory has no bearing on whether or not they're true.

You can only assign probabilities when you have a predetermined outcome. Until you can demonstrate that any such thing exists regarding the universe and its contents, your argument about probabilities is meaningless.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#29051 Jun 1, 2012
Doctor Who Two wrote:
<quoted text>
Such an intelligent response.
You showed him.
However the photo you use does look like a "Profoundly Retarded Moron" and the name of your Moron is Alfred E. Newman from MAD Magazine.
Well LowellGAY does seem to fit you better.
Your mom didn't seem to think so.

And, clearly you don't understand where Alfred came from, nor why it says what it says under the image.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#29052 Jun 1, 2012
Doctor Who Two wrote:
Mankind reasoning is always base SOLELY ON 'ASSumption' that
1) speed of light is CONSTANT
2) light is not affected by ELECTRON- MAGNETIC ENERGY
3) there could be many more CHARACTERISTICS of LIGHT which MANkind ignores or know not.
so Mankind concluded that the light of farthest stars 'NEED''billion light years' to travel this SPACE to be seen on earth.
Mankind always calculate base on linear assumption and ignore exponential values.
Mankind always think on 2 dimension and could not understand 3 dimensional objects easily and so not easy to share the information.
And most of Mankind can't fathom being outside the fourth dimension.
So, your argument is "creationism is true because it's only an illusion that science works, and reality is actually vastly different than we understand it because of concepts that are unknown, and even though nobody knows of these concepts, you know they exist and you know they are the reason the Bible is true and science is for shit." Well, I don't see how anybody could disagree with that. YOU WIN!

http://bangshift.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/...

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#29053 Jun 1, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
They can't grasp this stuff.
Nice try but were just wasting our time here.
Nice post Though
You're right. It's just religion - like any other believer in any other religion, you believe yours is the "one, true religion."

No surprise there.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#29054 Jun 1, 2012
yessir wrote:
<quoted text>
Condescension notwithstanding, I acknowledge that the logical conclusions of the Anthropic Principle have philosophical implications, but those implications don't negate the scientific observations. If you're more comfortable attributing these scientific realities to chance, rock on. Personally however, I'm not satisfied with an explanation of 'chance and coincidence' since these are probabilistically impossible whose acceptance requires blind faith.
You are making a mathematical claim without showing any of your numbers.

What is the probability of the outcome?
What is the data set in which we seek to find the outcome?
How many attempts on the data set have their been since the beginning of the Universe?

You can round up any decimals if that helps.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#29059 Jun 1, 2012
Doctor Who Two wrote:
Evolved in?
Still stuck on that lie?
Yet you can't offer another explanation that doesn't involve Magic.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#29060 Jun 1, 2012
Doctor Who Two wrote:
<quoted text>
No incorrect. I am not sure which one is the correct religion
So many with minor differences I am not sure which if any are 100% accurate.
I do know evolution is a crock!
You will have to explain that one , as we are pretty damn sure all religions are a crock. While the ToE is a truth.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#29061 Jun 1, 2012
Doctor Who Two wrote:
<quoted text>
No incorrect. I am not sure which one is the correct religion
So many with minor differences I am not sure which if any are 100% accurate.
I do know evolution is a crock!
No, you do not.

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 News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 7 min Pookie Bear 192,071
News Religious liberty is rallying cry after gay mar... 8 min DaveinMass 92
News Meet the Candidate: Carly Fiorina 8 min Miss Id 724
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 10 min NTR1 332,570
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 11 min Eagle 12 9,296
News Hillary Clinton to Visit Reno, Las Vegas on Thu... 11 min Local 14
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 14 min flack 1,250,941
News Why the Confederate flag flies in SC 21 min OhReally 2,079
News Mainstream Right-Wingers, Don't Even Start With... 47 min barefoot2626 465
More from around the web