Evolution vs. Creation

There are 163685 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.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#38436 Aug 15, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
All of your statements reflect a deep hostility to those that don't agree with you.
Such as:
"He thinks someone had to light the fuse to get a big bang."
So shape up or ship out if you want to have a fruitful discourse.
Maybe if you quit blowing smoke out your butt without a shred of evidence to back it up you wouldn't think everyone was out to get you.

We've just dismissed KJV and HTS for doing exactly what you're doing. Eventually you'll just wander off into the sunset and another uneducated blowhard will tale your place.
1 post removed

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#38438 Aug 15, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's fine, I don't care about young-earth theories. The same holds true for evolution. It can't be tested, and the models don't work at all. Mutations are not common enough to result in transitions, and everything in nature currently resists change very fiercely. Nature is a very conservative woman that doesn't like surprises.
You don't know what you are talking about when you say that evolution cannot be tested. It has been tested both in the short term and in the long term. Creationists have been using the "that's just homology" claim to the breaking point. When you make an unsupported claim like that all that takes to equal it is for me to simply gainsay it. Since you offered no proof at all I can beat it with a slam dunk by offering not only one example, but two. On the long run the finding of Tiktaalik was a positive test of the theory of evolution. It was not something that would have been found using any creation hypothesis. In the short term they have managed to get E. coli to evolve so it could digest citrate. Not only once but several times. And also in the short term there is the evolution of nylonaise. Oops, I couldn't help myself. Those are three examples that bust your claim of nontestability.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#38439 Aug 15, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Mmm, instead of a youtube video, why not explain to me simply what you are asserting here? And then apply the scientific method, and look for holes in your assertion.
That video explains how the appearance of mass from the Big Bang does not violate conservation of energy. It is an hour long, but he is an excellent speaker and the time flies.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#38440 Aug 15, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's fine, I don't care about young-earth theories. The same holds true for evolution. It can't be tested, and the models don't work at all. Mutations are not common enough to result in transitions, and everything in nature currently resists change very fiercely. Nature is a very conservative woman that doesn't like surprises.
By the way, there are no Young Earth theories. If believers in a Young Earth came out with even a testable hypothesis evolutionists would have tested it. It would have failed, since YEC's are clearly wrong. The steps in science are observation, creating a workable testable hypothesis, testing that hypothesis, submitting your tested hypothesis in theory form for peer review, and finally peer review rigorously tests your idea and if it passes the test given to it then it can be declared a theory.

Currently in school ALL scientific theories are taught. There are no scientific theories of creationism.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#38441 Aug 15, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You're delving deep into tin-foil hat territory here.
You DO realize that Fox News sued in court to have the right to lie to you, correct?
Ah, the ignorant masses display their usual rhetoric.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#38442 Aug 15, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> There absolutely nothing hostile about saying ..
You think someone had to light the fuse to get a big bang.
It just means that you think it could not have happened without something causing it, that is how all believers and creationists think.
No, that's how any honest scientists thinks, and has thought, for centuries, because the bulk of all scientific data point to design, not accident.

Oh, and so you claim you are not generally hostile with those that disagree with you?

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#38443 Aug 15, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe if you quit blowing smoke out your butt without a shred of evidence to back it up you wouldn't think everyone was out to get you.
We've just dismissed KJV and HTS for doing exactly what you're doing. Eventually you'll just wander off into the sunset and another uneducated blowhard will tale your place.
Doing exactly what, friend? I'm not here making assertions ... the evolutionists are ... and the common man and woman that follow along without actual know what the science is about.

I have nothing to assert here. As I've stated, Creationists and Evolutionists are both equally as batty and don't have enough evidence one way or another.

Are you claiming that KJV and HTS (whoever they are) make this EXACT same claim?

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#38444 Aug 15, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what you are talking about when you say that evolution cannot be tested. It has been tested both in the short term and in the long term. Creationists have been using the "that's just homology" claim to the breaking point. When you make an unsupported claim like that all that takes to equal it is for me to simply gainsay it. Since you offered no proof at all I can beat it with a slam dunk by offering not only one example, but two. On the long run the finding of Tiktaalik was a positive test of the theory of evolution. It was not something that would have been found using any creation hypothesis. In the short term they have managed to get E. coli to evolve so it could digest citrate. Not only once but several times. And also in the short term there is the evolution of nylonaise. Oops, I couldn't help myself. Those are three examples that bust your claim of nontestability.
I'm afraid that is not correct. It has not been tested, and cannot be tested, on a scale that would be convincing. Most evolutionists don't even know what they are talking about, and so go along with the flow, or have simply been persuaded.

Persuasion is a powerful thing. Why, just look at how many non-scientists, who have no idea what evolution is really about, actually believe in it on faith.(Faith actually means to be persuaded.)

Why do you keep bringing up creationism? I haven't. I don't support creationism. I assert no claims about the origins of life or the universe.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#38445 Aug 15, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what you are talking about when you say that evolution cannot be tested. It has been tested both in the short term and in the long term. Creationists have been using the "that's just homology" claim to the breaking point. When you make an unsupported claim like that all that takes to equal it is for me to simply gainsay it. Since you offered no proof at all I can beat it with a slam dunk by offering not only one example, but two. On the long run the finding of Tiktaalik was a positive test of the theory of evolution. It was not something that would have been found using any creation hypothesis. In the short term they have managed to get E. coli to evolve so it could digest citrate. Not only once but several times. And also in the short term there is the evolution of nylonaise. Oops, I couldn't help myself. Those are three examples that bust your claim of nontestability.
I'm afraid that is not correct. It has not been tested, and cannot be tested, on a scale that would be convincing. Most evolutionists don't even know what they are talking about, and so go along with the flow, or have simply been persuaded.

Persuasion is a powerful thing. Why, just look at how many non-scientists, who have no idea what evolution is really about, actually believe in it on faith.(Faith actually means to be persuaded.)

Why do you keep bringing up creationism? I haven't. I don't support creationism. I assert no claims about the origins of life or the universe.

That is just as about as bad assuming I support one political party if I am against another. Bad logic.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#38446 Aug 15, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's how any honest scientists thinks, and has thought, for centuries, because the bulk of all scientific data point to design, not accident.
Oh, and so you claim you are not generally hostile with those that disagree with you?
Yankee, you should not lie, in fact there is a double lie in your post.

First the bulk of all data supports the theory of evolution. In fact all of it supports evolution. That is one of the reasons it is such a strong theory. And as I stated already there is no theory of Creationism, nor are there any theories of ID.

Second, evolution is not based on "accident" far from it. Yes, there is a factor of randomness to it, but that in no way means it runs by accident. Natural selection is a much stronger factor for evolution than chance. Think of an old fashioned pachinko board. Exactly where the ball ends up side to side is dependent on chance, the fact that it is going to go down is the equivalent of natural selection. In other words the exact animals we got on Earth were due to chance, the fact that we have highly evolved animals is due to natural selection.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#38447 Aug 15, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Doing exactly what, friend? I'm not here making assertions ... the evolutionists are ... and the common man and woman that follow along without actual know what the science is about.
I have nothing to assert here. As I've stated, Creationists and Evolutionists are both equally as batty and don't have enough evidence one way or another.
Are you claiming that KJV and HTS (whoever they are) make this EXACT same claim?
The equivalence in possibility only seems that way to the uneducated. In the Dover trial one thing that the Evolution side had to do was to educate the judge as to how science is done. By the time the trial was done he made a slam dunk decision for the Evolutionists. In fact he was close to charging some of the IDiots with perjury, but he figured they had already suffered enough.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#38448 Aug 15, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That video explains how the appearance of mass from the Big Bang does not violate conservation of energy. It is an hour long, but he is an excellent speaker and the time flies.
That's fine, but I'm not really interested. I neither support nor argue against the Big Bang theory. It merely served as a point to illustrate how the theory is not universally accepted, and how there is plenty of data for an against it, depending on interpretation.

The universe is mysterious. I am fine with that. Evolutionists and Creationists evidently are not. I'm all for finding out more about the universe and its origins, but what most people don't seem to understand is, until we get some pretty nice starships, we will be seeing only the tiniest fraction of the universe from little ole earth.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#38449 Aug 15, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm afraid that is not correct. It has not been tested, and cannot be tested, on a scale that would be convincing. Most evolutionists don't even know what they are talking about, and so go along with the flow, or have simply been persuaded.
Persuasion is a powerful thing. Why, just look at how many non-scientists, who have no idea what evolution is really about, actually believe in it on faith.(Faith actually means to be persuaded.)
Why do you keep bringing up creationism? I haven't. I don't support creationism. I assert no claims about the origins of life or the universe.
That is just as about as bad assuming I support one political party if I am against another. Bad logic.
And you have not ben simply persuaded to 'go with the flow', huh?
Then please explain to us what you think the theory of e olution is about..., in you own word, not some cut and paste....

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#38450 Aug 15, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, there are no Young Earth theories. If believers in a Young Earth came out with even a testable hypothesis evolutionists would have tested it. It would have failed, since YEC's are clearly wrong. The steps in science are observation, creating a workable testable hypothesis, testing that hypothesis, submitting your tested hypothesis in theory form for peer review, and finally peer review rigorously tests your idea and if it passes the test given to it then it can be declared a theory.
Currently in school ALL scientific theories are taught. There are no scientific theories of creationism.
Oh. I wouldn't know. I don't pay much attention to them. You would think the way evolutionist attack them, that they'd have a theory. Mm.

Yes, and by the way, evolution fails all those tests. No observable evidence. And there are no tests. And if you don't think some ideas can graduate to theories despite peer-reviews evidence, think again. The scientific community is just as corruptible as any institution or organization of men. Even more so, because of arrogance.

In a way, science was stolen from the people by aristocracies of one sort or another. Interesting, huh?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#38451 Aug 15, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm afraid that is not correct. It has not been tested, and cannot be tested, on a scale that would be convincing. Most evolutionists don't even know what they are talking about, and so go along with the flow, or have simply been persuaded.
Persuasion is a powerful thing. Why, just look at how many non-scientists, who have no idea what evolution is really about, actually believe in it on faith.(Faith actually means to be persuaded.)
Why do you keep bringing up creationism? I haven't. I don't support creationism. I assert no claims about the origins of life or the universe.
That is just as about as bad assuming I support one political party if I am against another. Bad logic.
Wrong again. It is not convincing to you because you choose ignorance. Sorry but I must emphasize that fact. But evolution has been tested time after time, and it has always come out on top. Yes, nonscientists don't have a clue about a lot of things. Take Relativity for example. Most people don't really believe it. Since it does not threaten hardly anyone's religion it is not a controversial theory. And your statement about most evolutionists needs some qualifications. If you are taking about scientists you are obviously wrong. If you are talking about the average joe who does not have too much technical thinking you could be right.

To properly understand most scientific tests you need a fair amount of education in that particular science. The important thing is that scientists can explain how their theory works to those who have not had the education yet. For an example where the scientists have not had time to make a simplified explanation yet check out the info on the Higgs Boson. Your ignorance, or in the case of the Higgs even my ignorance is not an excuse to deny a theory. There are times that you go to the experts. Knowing when is extremely important in this world of ours.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#38452 Aug 15, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh. I wouldn't know. I don't pay much attention to them. You would think the way evolutionist attack them, that they'd have a theory. Mm.
Yes, and by the way, evolution fails all those tests. No observable evidence. And there are no tests. And if you don't think some ideas can graduate to theories despite peer-reviews evidence, think again. The scientific community is just as corruptible as any institution or organization of men. Even more so, because of arrogance.
In a way, science was stolen from the people by aristocracies of one sort or another. Interesting, huh?
Why do you keep making these obviously wrong statements. There is all sorts of observable evidence. You simply choose to ignore it. For someone who does not believe in creationism you seem to be making the exact same mistakes as one. That is a very strange coincidence. The scientific community may be as corruptible as any other institution, can you name a corrupt institution and prove it? Science is self correcting because there is no "big money" in it. Yes you can earn a decent living, but it is all but impossible to get rich as just a scientist. The removal of excessive money tends to keep the institution incredibly honest.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#38453 Aug 15, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yankee, you should not lie, in fact there is a double lie in your post.
First the bulk of all data supports the theory of evolution. In fact all of it supports evolution. That is one of the reasons it is such a strong theory. And as I stated already there is no theory of Creationism, nor are there any theories of ID.
Second, evolution is not based on "accident" far from it. Yes, there is a factor of randomness to it, but that in no way means it runs by accident. Natural selection is a much stronger factor for evolution than chance. Think of an old fashioned pachinko board. Exactly where the ball ends up side to side is dependent on chance, the fact that it is going to go down is the equivalent of natural selection. In other words the exact animals we got on Earth were due to chance, the fact that we have highly evolved animals is due to natural selection.
Not at all, and I don't lie, nor have a motive to lie. If you're going to go down the path of ad hominems, don't bother.

Let's be perfectly clear.

There is absolutely no evidence for evolution. None. It is not, and has never been a strong theory. It is not a real theory at all. What evolution is, is the profound and sad evidence of absolute corruption of the minds of good men, and the loss of a great deal of revenue and time in a dead end when there are much more important things to be spending money on.

Natural selection is an entirely different subject. Evolution may depend upon natural selection, but natural selection does not depend upon evolution.

And what I meant my accident, if that somehow, the vast and ever-growing complexity of ALL the scientific disciplines is somehow the result of an accident.

No, friend. ALL evidence, in ALL of the sciences, points to design. I do not care to speculate on WHO or WHAT the designer is. All I am interested in is the amusing and unbelievable superstition (yes, superstition) that all this magically came together on its own, from the laws of physics to biological systems vastly more complex and capable of processing data than all the super computers ever made.

Of course, I don't expect you to understand it. There is simply too much brainwashing and human conditioning in modern media to erase this nonsense from the planet. But I am certain, absolutely certain, than centuries from now scientists will look at this time period with the same amused disbelief as we do with Medieval folks that thought the world was flat.

Evolution is equal in stupidity and intellect as flat-earthers, hands down. But of course, Medieval folks never thought the earth was flat to begin with, and we modern humans have so many misconceptions on just about everything, that it's a wonder there is any progress at all.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#38454 Aug 15, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The equivalence in possibility only seems that way to the uneducated. In the Dover trial one thing that the Evolution side had to do was to educate the judge as to how science is done. By the time the trial was done he made a slam dunk decision for the Evolutionists. In fact he was close to charging some of the IDiots with perjury, but he figured they had already suffered enough.
In other words, the judge was convinced about how science is done, rather than how it actually applied to evolution. In other words, he was duped, and the fraud was on the part of the evolutionists.

Yes, that is standard operating procedure since the time of the Royal Academy and convincing kings to finance dumb ideas, and get more funding for them.

I don't know of the court hearing you speak of, but I know history, and court hearings from the time of Rome that went against all logic and reason, by using logic and reason itself rather than applying those tools to the problem at hand.

Invented by the Greeks, and called sophistry.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#38455 Aug 15, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you keep making these obviously wrong statements. There is all sorts of observable evidence. You simply choose to ignore it. For someone who does not believe in creationism you seem to be making the exact same mistakes as one. That is a very strange coincidence. The scientific community may be as corruptible as any other institution, can you name a corrupt institution and prove it? Science is self correcting because there is no "big money" in it. Yes you can earn a decent living, but it is all but impossible to get rich as just a scientist. The removal of excessive money tends to keep the institution incredibly honest.
I do not believe you understand how gov't funding of scientific research works...

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#38456 Aug 15, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>And you have not ben simply persuaded to 'go with the flow', huh?
Then please explain to us what you think the theory of e olution is about..., in you own word, not some cut and paste....
Even better, I'll tell you WHAT evolution is about. An otherwise valid hypothesis if mutations were numerous enough, and generally beneficial enough, to result in complex higher development in biology.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence for such a model, mutations are not common enough at all, nor do the extremely few mutations ever result in anything beneficial, let alone a new species.

Now, if a new model could be found, such as the possibility that evolution is slowed down dramatically, or become nonexistent, because we have reached near the apex of refinement, you might have something.

All current species on earth are only a tiny fraction of all life that has ever existed on earth. That means we are the best of the best, the most evolved of the evolved, the cream of the crop.

But that also suggest that there is some evolutionary goal, and that's a scary idea that borders on the lunacy of creationism. Nor is there evidence for any of this, of any variable accelerated rate of evolution over billions of years.

It is a popular theory because in one way it does make sense. But it is utterly unsupported by science on all counts for pure lack of evidence. You might as well believe in ET's seeding of the earth, there is more evidence for it with all the mysteries of archeology that go unexplained.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Realtime 1,232,046
News NEA president impressed with Del Valle Elementa... 8 min English only 1
News Pregnant Anna Duggar Smiles and Shows Baby Bump... 12 min Tazo 3
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 22 min xxxrayted 1,977
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 37 min Belle Sexton 59,884
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 39 min Scrutiny 189,653
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 49 min Injudgement 182,220
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 hr Brian_G 328,251
News Huckabee: I would ask Clinton about Benghazi 5 hr mitt s santorum s... 107
More from around the web