Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 219629 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.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51103 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
"Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote,“biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote,“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? See: Is the design explanation legitimate?
No, so far the design explanation is not legitimate, as it doesn't explain anything. We don't object to archaeologists pointing to designed objects because they can provide evidence and mechanisms for design. Creationists cannot do that. They unfortunately rely on the analogy of design IN PLACE of evidence, rather than using analogies properly - to EXPLAIN evidence.

“Shamatic Wisdom”

Since: Dec 10

Cannon, KY

#51104 Oct 8, 2012
Creation.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51105 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
"Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote,“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.6 Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem. See: That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils.
If Gould didn't think transitional fossils existed, then how come he thought transitional fossils existed? If creationists don't think they exist then how come they do exist? If creationists would accept evolution if we had transitional fossils, then how come they will reject them at all costs even when they PRECISELY match the criteria of being a transitional fossil?

In short, why do creationists ignore the 9th Commandment?

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#51106 Oct 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no nerve struck. I am just wondering why you think people would need sock puppets to attack your nonsense?
Your religion/evolution has blinded you from the truth.
Also the fact that you belong to the fastest shrinking religion/evolution in the world.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51107 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
"How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote,“the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”7 See: Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation.
How come those "living fossils" HAVE actually changed over time? In short, why do creationists ignore the 9th Commandment?

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#51108 Oct 8, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
So provide the scientific definition for "ape", and tell us how humans do not meet that definition.
<quoted text>
So provide the scientific definition for "ape", and tell us how humans do not meet that definition.
Apes can not invent concrete things like aeroplanes, jets, televisions, satellites etc.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51109 Oct 8, 2012
FALCONER wrote:
<quoted text>
I happen to find these questions very interesting as well as on topic.
I may not understand all the science involved but the questions are very provocative and intelligent.
To the layman, perhaps. That is how they were designed. But another part of the problem is that the questions themselves contain falsehoods.

Another part of the problem is that their source is anti-scientific - they start with a YEC view of the Bible, and attempt to fit the star shape into the round hole. It doesn't work.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#51110 Oct 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly you have no idea what whining is. I was not whining. I do hate to make mistakes in English. Especially obvious ones involving to, too, and two.
Also it irks me when I am a victim of Muphry's Law.
Its funny but when someone posts and perhaps misspells or makes a typo, as long as I understand what they intended to say, I never mention the typo.
Murphy's law is definitely being applied to the religion of evolution.
LOL
:)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51111 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't want dialogue.
They want to dominate and suppress opposing opinions.
On the contrary, I've been asking, no, BEGGING the fundies to tell me what the "scientific theory" of Creationism is for 7 years.

The scientific community has been asking them for decades.(Or 3,000 years or so, depending on how you look at it)

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#51112 Oct 8, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Are you going to admit your mistake? Or pretend that you didn't make it?
<quoted text>
In your original claim, did you say "in my country"? Yes or no?
<quoted text>
I'll be glad to admit an error as soon as I make one.
Now back to your own error. In your original claim, did you say "in my country"? Yes or no?
But initially, you said that philosophy was never taken as a general subject, true or false?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51113 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
"How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? See: G.K. Chesterton: Darwinism is ‘An attack upon thought itself’.
Philosophical straw-man. Life is what you make it. Of course none of this is relevant to the validity of scientific concepts.

Besides, since creationists lying for Jesus is a necessity, it's rather ironic them talking about morality...

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#51114 Oct 8, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Philosophy in a more literal sense. "Love of Knowledge".
In your imagination.
Philosophy as a discipline, covers all areas, including arts, sciences and social sciences. All are centres for knowledge.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51115 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated:“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote,“It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers ….”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? See: Is evolution relevant or helpful to real science?
Ah, I see. Flu shot? Evolution. Cancer research? Evolution. While the Commies during the Cold War were busy playing with Lamarck and failing to take the farming community by storm the rest of the world were applying evolutionary principles to agriculture, resulting in greater crop yields. This is the part were creationists start whining "BUT IT'S ONLY MICROEVOLUTION! MICRO MICRO MICROOOOOOOOOOOO!!!" "
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51116 Oct 8, 2012
FALCONER wrote:
<quoted text>
I happen to find some of the other posts on here to be far more rude than the questions this poster is asking.
It seems to me that you are less bothered by the so-called spamming and more upset about the content of legitimate questions being asked about the topic at hand.
As I told the other poster, I'm not a scientist but I do find his/her posts provocative and interesting.
It may be that the truth lies somewhere in between intelligent design and evolution, but you seem to dismiss all argument that doesn't comply with your views.
That is not constructive debate.
IMHO!
However surely if Sparky was interested in debate he'd do that, rather than spam copy-paste nonsense from a Young Earth Creationist site - without citation (which is plagiarism)- and demonstrate in a coherent rational manner how creationism works and falsify evolution?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51117 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
"Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said,“Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12 See: A valid distinction: origins science versus operational science.
Another way of saying: "How do YOU know? Where you THERE?!?"

Courtroom judges are just big ol' meanies though, as they tend to just roll their eyes whenever somebody says that.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51118 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….” Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted,“Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? See: The religious nature of evolution,“It’s not science”.
Popper disagreed with Popper. Of course creationists already know this and prefer to mine quotes either out of context, or before people came to their sense later on (as those kinds of epiphanies are politically and theologically inconvenient). Unfortunately while you attempt to tangent towards philosophical arguments, evolution carries on.

Science couldn't give two hoots what philosophy has to say about it.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51119 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
I happen to know the history of both antibiotics and oil (As in their discovery and use by man)
Man discovered,manipulated their properties and utilized the end product.
It was hardly random.
Ah! Oil! That stuff which Young Earth Creationists are so good at finding using "Creation geology!"

.

Oh, wait. They're not actually doing that...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51120 Oct 8, 2012
FALCONER wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the best question of all.
Most people who believe in evolution also happen to be atheists,so they become very aggressive when they find out that their own belief is in fact a religion.
I kept this question for my facebook friends many of whom are atheists.
I'm off to have some fun with them.
Keep up the good work.
Evolution and atheism are two separate concepts. Atheism is a point of view towards a philosophical concept. Evolution is science. There are also Christians who accept evolution. Also your new friend there has acted dishonestly.

Choose your friends wisely...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#51121 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
How convenient.
Got any proof?
Thought not.
"Proof" is only for math and alcohol, not science. Science deals with facts and evidence. The reason being potential falsification is important in science.
The Dude

Stevens Point, WI

#51122 Oct 8, 2012
But you see?
President Starky is not responding to grey sock trolls.

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 Trump supporters cheer his combative stance wit... 3 min jonjedi 487
News Yes, Mass Deportations Are Coming. And We Know ... 4 min USA 74
News Thousands of demonstrators protest Trump in Atl... 6 min American Independent 1,511
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 6 min chazmo 36,515
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Cheech the Conser... 1,497,867
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 10 min Dr Phil 237,689
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 11 min chazmo 413,094
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 19 min Trump your President 6,033
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 24 min i was 259,051
More from around the web