Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 172027 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.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83961 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm cool with it.(shrug)
<quoted text>
So either the science we present is correct or there really is a great big science conspiracy. That IS what most anti-science promoters think, so all you need to do is say you wanna be as daft as a creationist. However if you don't wanna be as daft as a creationist then I don't blame you. Neither do I.
That does not mean I will accept every single thing as "gospel" that is posited...neither does that action make me a "creationist"...unle ss one "needs" to create "camps".
I am not a "camper", and I will question anything that appears questionable...until I am satisfied that it is reasonably certain.
I am not "anti-science" as you would put it. I just want to know that it is indeed correct.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83962 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The ancient Egyptians.
But I guess technically we can't since now they're all dead.
:-/
Ok. Anyone "today"? Even allowing advanced technology...
The pieces are there and the elements are there. We simply need to reproduce them.
It's one of those "things" that throws a cog in the wheel.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#83963 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Infinity IS a value in mathematics. We don't know if eternity exists or not because the universe we exist in is apparently finite from what we can tell.
Let me correct your statement from “WE” don’t know if eternity exists to “YOU” don’t know. The dude me and your understanding goes in opposite directions and your conclusions is not the same as mine.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83964 Mar 30, 2013
Mark wrote:
Complexity = design, design = Designer.
Natural phenomena produces complexity all the time. I can provide PLENTY of examples.

However if complexity = design, then as well as the mechanisms of design and evidence of them you also have to define how complexity is measured/quantified, what the demarcation line is between designed and non-designed, and how that line was determined in an objective manner via the scientific method.

You won't.

And I said the same thing last week.

So far I have been correct.(shrug)
Mark wrote:
We can go back and forth arguing weather in your opinion an eye formed itself, or the complex reaction after a photon strikes a rod to create sight utterly dashes every evolutionary pretext mathematically, stretches every element of reason into the ridiculous, and has never been, nor can be replicated is your kind of "science"?
Evolution is repeatable and testable. I've already demonstrated that. So far you have not addressed it. Quite frankly the fundie predilection to take events back to abio is irrelevant. You can claim God, aliens or Cosmic Sheep from dimension Zog started it all off if you wanna. All evolution requires is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.

Besides, all your beefs with science are thrown out by the very premise of your own position - Goddidit with magic. This by definition renders evidence utterly superfluous. You can demonstrate this false by explaining exactly what the "scientific theory" of creationism is.
Mark wrote:
Your side asserts that time, mutations and chance produce it and a thousand other biochemical features in life (and life itself), requires faith outside of science, as mine does. You "believe" it, and always hope that in time your side will find the magic answers.
Incorrect. Faith becomes superfluous when one has evidence. As for abio, the theory of evolution does not rely on it.
Mark wrote:
The Goddoneit position makes fantastic complexity point to God. That’s His business, it's pretty amazing work, and He choose creation to be a daily reminder for us.
You don't "believe" that man was here in the beginning based on your faith in the same origins science that tells you sight is an easy accident! Very ironic to me.
Keep beating up that straw-man.
Mark wrote:
All early human history show that Ag was going on, not to mention the Bible.
Playing in perceptions can get you far in politics and the self-feeding world of evolutionary thought, but it will not change truth, that is my absolute.
"Truth" is subjective. Especially in your case as you are intellectually dishonest.
Mark wrote:
Don't you tire of calling everyone that doesn't agree with your opinions "liars" get old?
It does get stale sometimes pointing out that creationists lie, yes. But you can't help it. Otherwise you wouldn't be a fundie.(shrug)
Mark wrote:
And you claim you are the educated enlightened one! You will get no respect for that!
Your opinions are irrelevant. I don't claim to be educated and enlightened, but the simple fact is I know more about biology than you. Or you know more than I do and are lying even more than I originally thought.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83965 Mar 30, 2013
Mark wrote:
In the end we are challenging each other over the strength of one faith over the other.
As much as you'd like to pretend that is the case, evidence makes faith in my position superfluous.
Mark wrote:
You say no God
Nope. I've never said that. Ever. That's just yet another one of your caricatures that you are required to use in order to avoid dealing with reality.

Atheism is irrelevant to science. Science makes no theological claims. Therefore:

1 - God does not exist.

2 - God used evolution.

3 - God is a liar.

I am open to all these possibilities.
Mark wrote:
and then call me a liar, pretty childish in my view
Your view is TOTALLY irrelevant. You are simply not important, period.
Mark wrote:
and you don't know me.
I know enough to know you're a typical fundie liar for Jesus. That is all that's required. If you want me to stop calling you a liar then you have to stop lying.

You won't.

And I said the same thing last week.

So far I have been correct.(shrug)
Mark wrote:
As in Behe's book, I would recheck which "Black Box" you are in.
You mean the guy who accepts common descent and thinks God is dead? That Behe? Do let us know when his IC claims pass peer-review, eh?
Mark wrote:
My stories are reflective of reality and experiance
If they were reflective of reality you'd be able to provide evidence instead of personal anecdotes full of appeals to emotion.
Mark wrote:
which are noticably absent amoung this group.
That's because this thread is full of creationists.
Mark wrote:
Like flying around with siesmic gear or portable drill rigs and working with highlevel exploration geologists. No liars allowed.
Unless they lie for Jesus, then they get a free pass. Apparently.
Mark

United States

#83966 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You're breaking my heart.
<quoted text>
Of course you did. Which is why you lack the most basic science education in biology.
<quoted text>
Keep beating up that straw-man, Marky.
<quoted text>
The lie is that what science teaches. It doesn't. In fact it makes no theological claims at all.
<quoted text>
Via what scientific mechanism?
<quoted text>
Plenty of soil on Mars.(shrug)
<quoted text>
"Perfect" is subjective. Fact is the moon was closer in the past. The universe is constantly changing.
<quoted text>
Nice appeal to ignorance and emotion ya got there. However I'm still waiting for you to apologize for breaking the 9th Commandment. Apparently God does not mean that much to you.(shrug)
Well Dude, I am sorry you think this is all manufactured, it's not, just like the fact that I lost a very good friend flying seismic gear a few mo. ago, its all real folks. God means a ton to me, because He is all about truth, but more than that, love, forgiveness and understanding. Clear conscience on the 9th. The liar lable is getting old, Bill's wife would slap you for that.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83967 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the age of the universe has been considered to be around 13.71 billion years (give or take a few hundred thousand) for longer than I've been alive. See, new scientific hypotheses which replace older ones in general tend to get more accurate as we go along.
That's their hypothesis. I will stick with mine for now....until something definite is discovered.
Where is the repository for all the black holes?
Where does the "information" go when they "disappear"?
Does "string" play a role in all that?

That is why I will stick with the process of cycle.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83968 Mar 30, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your kind and respectful response.
A question to ponder, or 2;
1. If we do the math on popluation growth of humans based on known factors,- and run this out 1 mill years, there would have been more than 10X25th people who whould have lived on the earth. Most of the known universe could not hold all the bones.. A thought, when all the bones if these transitionals can fit on your living room floor.
2. Ayala was very concerned about genetic load,(posters her are stating 120+ per generation), that in 200 generations (10K y)the human race would be done for. His words, not mine.
1 - Only if you ignore known population sizes and don't take things like wars and diseases into account. Oh, and well done for not realizing that fossilization is a rare process. Despite this we have THOUSANDS of fossils, and they show a good picture of evolutionary development.

2 - Time will tell, eh? However you are referring to work he did from four decades ago. But even if evolution eventually leads us all to extinction, that is a future event and does not affect evolution from getting us to where we are. To claim otherwise would be misrepresenting him. But then, fundies LOVE doing that.(shrug) Also an interesting aside, he's a theistic evolutionist. Meaning he's not a pal of yours, disagrees with you, and uses scientific concepts you reject to make conclusions you disagree with. So you've no reason to take any of his claims seriously anyway. ESPECIALLY since you're a reality-denying YEC who thinks Goddidit with magic.

You can't invoke science you disagree with to claim science you disagree with is wrong. That would only make you a big fat juicy hypocrite.

I'm sure God is proud.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83969 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the laws that govern this astronomical planet is fixed. Meaning any concept or idea that refutes it is wrong. I will explain why this is so. There is something the scientific method does not cover that the scientific researcer or scientist must comply to when searching for other un-discovered scientific laws.
Ah, but you don't know what those laws that govern the planet are.

If you do then the scientific community could use your help, as they are currently attempting to come up with a unified theory of quantum gravity.

Maybe your alien pals could give 'em a hand?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83970 Mar 30, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Your logic is wrong.
I know. I was using your "logic".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83971 Mar 30, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
SCPID theory contemplates and explains these truths.
Dammit, Mikey!
Mark

United States

#83972 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
As much as you'd like to pretend that is the case, evidence makes faith in my position superfluous.
<quoted text>
Nope. I've never said that. Ever. That's just yet another one of your caricatures that you are required to use in order to avoid dealing with reality.
Atheism is irrelevant to science. Science makes no theological claims. Therefore:
1 - God does not exist.
2 - God used evolution.
3 - God is a liar.
I am open to all these possibilities.
<quoted text>
Your view is TOTALLY irrelevant. You are simply not important, period.
<quoted text>
I know enough to know you're a typical fundie liar for Jesus. That is all that's required. If you want me to stop calling you a liar then you have to stop lying.
You won't.
And I said the same thing last week.
So far I have been correct.(shrug)
<quoted text>
You mean the guy who accepts common descent and thinks God is dead? That Behe? Do let us know when his IC claims pass peer-review, eh?
<quoted text>
If they were reflective of reality you'd be able to provide evidence instead of personal anecdotes full of appeals to emotion.
<quoted text>
That's because this thread is full of creationists.
<quoted text>
Unless they lie for Jesus, then they get a free pass. Apparently.

See that popup for CSX?, they, UP, NFS, CN, CPR and others would have a good laugh at your assertion of my lack of integrity, liars are lousy inventors.. I must admit a Brit is on the patent with me on part of that one, he retired to NZ. Very glad to hear you are open... but your faith in evo creating things such a gold standard of all truth... Perplexing to me but your biz. Apologize for stereotyping you with atheists, I really am sorry.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83973 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
If you want to believe mercury is not governed by gravity that’s your choice.
I never claimed Mercury is not governed by gravity. Of course it's governed by gravity.
Infinite Force wrote:
Gravity keeps this planet in its orbit. Universal constant stands!
Unless there is no mass. But currently we do have mass. Therefore gravity affects Mercury.
Infinite Force wrote:
The empirical data observed in the laws of nature is not “invented” by humans and behaves a certain way.
ALL laws are invented by humans. They are an abstract concept. Nothing more. This is the part you're not getting.
Infinite Force wrote:
Mercury told me to tell you to stop saying it’s not attracted (gravity) to our star.
It's only attracted to a certain extent. I mean, it doesn't LOVE it, otherwise it would spiral into the sun.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83974 Mar 30, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>actually, i thought it was the warping of space/time that did that...
And gravity warps spacetime.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83975 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Not if "they were the carriers? It is now being postulated that there may have been glacial boundaries in the European populations at some point. I don't have a link at hand to it, but I did read that...so it may be a factor also.
Anyway, something more to add to the puzzle.
Maybe. But humans and neanderthals share DNA, either by ancestry or interbreeding. Which is why I suggest humans would also be susceptible to the same virus. Though it MAY be possible that there was something in human genetics that made us immune but not neanderthals.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#83976 Mar 30, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>actually, i thought it was the warping of space/time that did that...
I never heard of planets in a revolutionary orbit without a sun.

Second, what is time?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83977 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
I speak of the laws that govern the empirical evidence not the empirical evidence itself. This is when you will discover a universal law constant.
And you've "discovered" NO scientific "laws".
Infinite Force wrote:
This is a whole nother level of thinking because now you know you can not come to a conclusion unless it's a scientific law
The highest level in science is a scientific theory. They NEVER get "proven" to be "promoted" to "laws".
Infinite Force wrote:
or self-evident truth.
No such thing. That is an emotional argument used by fundies and cranks. Empirical testing is always required.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83978 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> I follow that, even though it has it's own pitfalls here and there. Like the pelvic bones becoming smaller and making birth even more difficult, resulting in the infant actually being born prematurely in humans as compared to apes.
Nobody said evolution made things perfect.(shrug)
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
This could possibly be a distinct advantage in the human becoming more intelligent though. The child's brain and awareness is still developing for about 1 year after birth, so has a multitude more information during that development period.
Actually it develops for a lot longer than just a year. The hypothesis about human intelligence is that humans don't have a strong anchor-point at the top of their skulls like other apes, in fact the skull is in four pieces as the baby is born which basically helps get the head out during birth. This allowed our brains to expand more than other apes thus enabling our intelligence (which has its own advantages and drawbacks).
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83979 Mar 30, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
As I see it, based on your past stereotyping, belittling and intolerant remarks toward me and others of the same faith or origins understanding, your prejudice is screaming. I see a "stomp them out" attitude in your posts.
If you think you can bully me off because I am of another faith or origins understanding with hate-words and weak arguments, you are very mistaken.
It must be Easter or something, does that explain why you're carrying your own cross? Does merely disagreeing with you amount to "hate"? As for weak arguments, that's projection on your part.

What's the "scientific theory" of creationism?
Mark

United States

#83980 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
1 - Only if you ignore known population sizes and don't take things like wars and diseases into account. Oh, and well done for not realizing that fossilization is a rare process. Despite this we have THOUSANDS of fossils, and they show a good picture of evolutionary development.
2 - Time will tell, eh? However you are referring to work he did from four decades ago. But even if evolution eventually leads us all to extinction, that is a future event and does not affect evolution from getting us to where we are. To claim otherwise would be misrepresenting him. But then, fundies LOVE doing that.(shrug) Also an interesting aside, he's a theistic evolutionist. Meaning he's not a pal of yours, disagrees with you, and uses scientific concepts you reject to make conclusions you disagree with. So you've no reason to take any of his claims seriously anyway. ESPECIALLY since you're a reality-denying YEC who thinks Goddidit with magic.
You can't invoke science you disagree with to claim science you disagree with is wrong. That would only make you a big fat juicy hypocrite.
I'm sure God is proud.
On #1, the math used was a population statistic average over known history. I would need to look up the calc. Agree with the variable's involved. Its a question, not a proof.
On #2, he worked in a time when one could get more non-evolutionary challenges or things to think about past peer review. Never happen today. You can imagine, you could measure his job life in seconds, no 1/2 lives involved.

I knew Dr. M. Miller personally because of his work in Alaska. I once asked, "Maynard, how old is the oldest ice on the planet", his answer; "less than 6000 years", I asked, "do you have documentation on that", "yes its in one of my papers - "in the tables"! He sent me a copy. That was 30 years ago. OK, can we have a truce over this "what God thinks of me" stuff?

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) 2 min Dr Guru MD CEO 194,737
News The View that Putin's Advisor Has on Obama's Uk... (Nov '14) 4 min George 2,893
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 6 min Benjamin 336,912
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 11 min AMERICAN SUNSHINE 190,480
News 5 things about Congress' fight over Planned Par... 12 min Chicopee 57
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 14 min Incognito4Ever 1,264,676
News Washington battle rages over Iran deal's fate 18 min OccupyThis 7
More from around the web