Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173598 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.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

UK

#43378 Sep 5, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
This quote has nothing to do with the philosophical concept of naturalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_ (philosophy)
And like every dishonest Jesus Freak who tries this quote-mining stunt, you give us the passage ENTIRELY OUT OF CONTEXT so we cannot see what Ruse is really trying to say.
Just for a laugh I decided to see if it was a quote mine is the short answer is yes he is the long answer http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/...
There's quite in them hills.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#43379 Sep 5, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>A functional continuum does not exist between a conventional pentadactyl forelimb and a pterosaur wing. No one can hypothesize such a continuum, so where is the scientific reason to accept such a proposal? What I've been challenging you and others to do is to demonstrate that it's conceptually possible...and you can't do that. Pterosaur evolution is conceptually impossible, and you seem to be content not to refute the assertion that a logical pathway of transmutation does not exist. By the way, how did the period bone just happen to "appear" in the right place and at the right time?
And that in no way falsifies evolution. That's the easy part that you refuse to grasp.

No, if you really had something that actually falsified evolution, you would offer a well supported alternative, other than just claiming it's impossible. YOU have to offer an alternative that explains the evidence, even the lack of evidence better. But so far, as has been pointed out over and over again, you never support your conjecture. You state it like it means something, but you refuse to back it up.

So if pointing that out is belittling to you, it's self-inflicted belittling.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#43380 Sep 5, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You've deluded yourself into thinking that you've won probability arguments because you've simply dismissed. Atheists in their arrogance believe that complexity doesn't exist. They think that probability doesn't apply to evolution. They think that a random shuffle from a deck of cards is no more complex than DNA sequences. That is the heart of the problem. They believe that a monkey can type Shakespeare.
Seriously, you are SUCH a pathetic, attention-needy, time-wasting, Christian a__hole. LOL!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#43381 Sep 5, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It's not illogical to point out an impossibility to evolution and reject it on that basis. That is exactly how scientific theories are falsified.
It's illogical to rule out evolution when gods, the only alternative, are many, many, MANY googols of orders of magnitude less likely. You need to stop considering any mechanisms for life other than abiogenesis and evolution.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#43382 Sep 5, 2012
davy wrote:
Celebrate evolution by beating a creationist to death with a fossil!
Blunt trauma ... to the fossil.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#43383 Sep 5, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It's not illogical to point out an impossibility to evolution and reject it on that basis. That is exactly how scientific theories are falsified.
No that is not how scientific theories are falsified. Thwey are falsified by stating a premise that a scientific theory cannot meet and then providing the evidence that is does not meet the premise. Stating that it cannot meet a premise without evidence of not meeting it is meanlingless.

For example a premise that would falsify evolution is something as simple as a rabbit fossil found inside the stomach of a dinosaur fossil. There is the premise. Now, where is the evidence? So far nothing even similar to it has been found. So until one is actually found, evolution is a valid and viable theory. If one is found, then evolution will have been found to be falsified and a btter explanation will eventually be forthcoming.

For example, Stephen J. Ghould created a premise that claimed that Darwin's idea of gradualism didn't meet all of the noted changes. He and a partner found the evidence that supported his premise. They then formulated the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium to explain the evidence and since Gradualism met some of the actual examples and PE met the other examples, both are now part of the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution, a better explanation than the theory before PE.

Get the idea? I doubt it, you have been persistantly resistant to actual ideas, so pardon me if I assume you will once again meet my extremely low expectations of you. But I am an optimist.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

UK

#43384 Sep 5, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Faith is based on evidence and investigation. It is a common myth among atheists that a belief in Deity is founded on blind faith. The converse is true. Atheism is based on denial of evidence. It is founded solely on a worldview, and evidence is fabricated to fit that worldview.
Read the quote again “conviction in things unseen” is it really that hard to see where get the idea that religious faith is blind, and different to the faith you have just described.
And no Week atheism is based upon the lack of evidence it is a disbelief not a belief in the nonexistence of God.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#43385 Sep 5, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Quit dodging... what sort of environment could favor a six foot long fourth digit?
I don't know, ask nature.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#43386 Sep 5, 2012
wolverine wrote:
Drew, Engish Was Spawned At the Tower of Babel.
There was no Tower of Babel event. 4,000+- years ago the whole world was already settled. There were people speaking early versions of whatever was spoken in their countries.

The last continents to be settled were North and South America around 15,000 years ago (maybe earlier).

The Tower of Babel was one of the easiest Biblical myths to disprove

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

UK

#43387 Sep 5, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Learn the difference between the philosophical belief of Naturalism and the procedure of METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_ (philosophy)
METAPHYSICAL NATURALISM, also called "ontological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism", is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling. Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, refers exclusively to the methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation.
Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to, or supervene upon, nature. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.
METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. The genesis of nature, e.g., by an act of God, is not addressed. This second sense of naturalism seeks only to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge. It is a distinct system of thought concerned with a cognitive approach to reality, and is thus a philosophy of knowledge. Studies by sociologist Elaine Ecklund suggest that religious scientists do in fact apply methodological naturalism. They report that their religious beliefs affect the way they think about the implications, often moral, of their work, but not the way they practice science.[14][15]
I had no idea there was two forms of naturalism I have always referring to methodological naturalism as the only one thanks.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

UK

#43388 Sep 5, 2012
Jim H wrote:
Creationist Theology is based on :
A God of order
The Dominion mandate
Because God upholds the universe in a consistent way we have the opportunity to explore science based on the scientific method of observation in the present. Christians love science! Genesis 1-11 is the History book of the universe,it does not show all the scientific details you may want, but it is correct in all its assertions
Great here is the simplest answer and therefore probably correct (Archimedes razor)
The universe is way it is because it's just the way it is it was not made and could have been anything.
It's simpler because I don't have to add the supernatural.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#43389 Sep 5, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Not being born yet kinda slowed me down.
<quoted text>
Yeah. Great guitar. Being cheap, I bought this:
http://www.jayturser.com/products/electrics/j...
Pretty close. Great for Byrds songs.
Yeah the Byrds sound is one I love,same as Tom Petty and Paul Weller from the Jam and the guys in Wilco, it's not the "rock god" sound, but I love that kind of ringing echo you get, girly I know but I am a girly, I forgive you for the pre-born debacle of not annoying people....

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#43390 Sep 5, 2012
sugar star wrote:
I forgive you for the pre-born debacle of not annoying people....
Much appreciated.

;-)
HTS

Englewood, CO

#43391 Sep 5, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
And that in no way falsifies evolution. That's the easy part that you refuse to grasp.
No, if you really had something that actually falsified evolution, you would offer a well supported alternative, other than just claiming it's impossible. YOU have to offer an alternative that explains the evidence, even the lack of evidence better. But so far, as has been pointed out over and over again, you never support your conjecture. You state it like it means something, but you refuse to back it up.
So if pointing that out is belittling to you, it's self-inflicted belittling.
You have no understanding of science. Look up "false dilemma" on wikipedia. A scientific theory can be falsified without proposing any alternative theory. This is why spontaneous generation was accepted for centuries... because no one had any other explanation for maggots appearing in rotting meat.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#43392 Sep 5, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
No that is not how scientific theories are falsified. Thwey are falsified by stating a premise that a scientific theory cannot meet and then providing the evidence that is does not meet the premise. Stating that it cannot meet a premise without evidence of not meeting it is meanlingless.
For example a premise that would falsify evolution is something as simple as a rabbit fossil found inside the stomach of a dinosaur fossil. There is the premise. Now, where is the evidence? So far nothing even similar to it has been found. So until one is actually found, evolution is a valid and viable theory. If one is found, then evolution will have been found to be falsified and a btter explanation will eventually be forthcoming.
.
A premise that a scientific theory cannot meet is this: a terrestrial reptile cannot evolve into a pterosaur because a conceptual functional continuum does not exist. The absence of fossil intermediate forms provides evidence of the validity of that contention. You cannot defend the premise of gradualism in the case of pterosaurs. All you can do is set up diversions such as pointing out other perceived evidences for evolution in other species, or pulling out the "incredulity" card.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#43393 Sep 5, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It's illogical to rule out evolution when gods, the only alternative, are many, many, MANY googols of orders of magnitude less likely. You need to stop considering any mechanisms for life other than abiogenesis and evolution.
I've basically forced you into conceding that you believe in evolution because you don't believe in God. Disbelief in a religion is no justification for acceptance of a scientific theory.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#43394 Sep 5, 2012
HTS wrote:
You've deluded yourself into thinking that you've won probability arguments because you've simply dismissed.
That's what I was thinking! You haven't even tried to rebut my improbability argument.

Let me rephrase it: what is less likely to exist than something that is infinitely powerful and all knowing? Something infinity-and-one powerful? There is no way an infinite god could exist short of a stepwise evolutionary process from lesser forms, which just makes gods another form of abiogenesis and evolution as the present one, except infinitely more problematic.

You've bellied up for this argument, haven't you? You resent discussions about your god while you ramble on about evolution. You resent goop-to-spook blasphemy but gladly refer to goo-to-you. You don't like being called "Jesus Boy" or "pussy" (I'll be getting to that one later, after I'm done letting you pout) even as you call others "morons" and I don't remember what else, and periodically tantrum.

And now, you don't like to have to discuss the mathematical impossibility of a god while referring continually to the improbability of naturalistic explanations for life, as if probability arguments against a cell are valid, but not the SAME argument augmented to the magnitude of gods.

What I find so distasteful in your posting is your dishonesty and double standard - your special pleading. You make excuses like an alcoholic. A lifetime of antiprocessing in defense of your faith based beliefs has left your spirit depleted.

the way you offer arguments that you wouldn't accept, and demand rigor that you don't offer. I don't like that you ignore what you're told and then taunt that nobody dares rebut you.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#43395 Sep 5, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Congratulations, Igor... Your explanation is about as sophisiticated as PhD-level biologists.... Just stretch the digits and provide webbing... How does that happen? So you think if surgeons took a lizard and made its digits longer and constructed skin flaps between them that the lizard would produce more offspring?
If it offered an advantage.

Many lizards can glide which helps in forests, pterosaurs just went one better.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#43396 Sep 5, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I've basically forced you into conceding that you believe in evolution because you don't believe in God. Disbelief in a religion is no justification for acceptance of a scientific theory.
More delusions from a radical anti-science fundie creationismist.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

UK

#43397 Sep 5, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"I have here, 10 questions that evolutionists have never been able to answer with an infallible argument. Or even a good answer for that matter. I want you, and anyone you can find to attempt to answer these questions. "
1. Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?
2.Where did the necessary materials to create the universe come from and
where did they exist if there was no space?
3. Where did life originally come from if it can not appear spontaneously?
4. Which came first? Male or Female?
5. Why do we find petrified trees standing up through supposedly “millions” of years worth of geological layers?
6. What were the first elements to be formed?
7. When and how did the stars come to be?
8. When did the laws of nature(i.e. Gravity) first come into effect?
9. Why is an unproven theory used as fact?
10. How did the universe start(please provide specified details)?
"Those are the ten questions, I hope you find time to attempt to answer them"
I've have already answered these questions before so I will respond again, as before any responses in brackets show it has nothing to do with evolution.
1 (none following Archimedes razor they always existed in some form or another that is the simplest answer.)
2 (same as before)
3 (this abiogenesis we have no idea how it occurred on our planet we do know that organic molecules or common in the universe http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/157-news... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/... and cells as we know them didn't exist are in fact a combination of two different cells, the mitochondria has its own DNA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DN... )
4 (neither the first cells reproduced asexually because sexual production acquires more than one cell working together this abiogenesis again)
5
the fireworks start at 6:16 enjoy the show
6 (hydrogen and before you bring up 1 and 2 atoms are collections of electrons neutrons and protons)
7 (an accurate when is impossible to get if I remember correctly but stars form by hydrogen clouds contracting due to gravity, the friction causes enough heat energy to cause fusion which then gives off heat and light energy.)
8 (I think there were always in effect they are passively active)
9 science uses a different definition of theory a scientific theory is a predictive model of reality.
10 (1 and 2)
6 of your questions nothing to do a evolution and 9 almost made that count into 7, the only way it's skimmed past was because it attacks all theories.
So let me give you just 5 questions and hopefully unlike yours I will keep it relevant to creationism.
1 If God made the world perfect how did it go wrong? in it’s view temptation is destructive to perfection.
2 why did God give us so much junk in our DNA? we grow monkey tails! http://www.google.co.uk/imgres...
3 why did God decide to make the job harder for it’s self and make the nerve going from the brain to the voice box goes past the heart then up again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryng...
4 if it is true all things cause they're why does God not have to have a cause?
5 isn't saying all things have cause and then saying because of that God must exist and not have a cause contradictory?
(If you don't go grooved statements all things cause just say so and ignore 4 and 5)

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 'We can't be intimidated' 4 min justice 31
News Bernie Sanders To Introduce Legislation Abolish... 4 min FlatbushSam 30
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min HILLARY 2016 193,752
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Incognito4Ever 1,275,976
News Clinton campaign denies 'boxcar' a Holocaust re... 6 min Denny CranesPlace 31
News Romney Slams Trump's 'Unfortunate' Remarks on I... 6 min Synque 18
News Obama Won't Be Pushing Second Amendment Rollbac... 7 min Truth and Facts 68
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 17 min thetruth 12,643
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 45 min positronium 340,908
News 'Anchor baby' fight scrambles Republican field 48 min Denny CranesPlace 210
More from around the web