Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223358 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.

Since: Jul 14

Location hidden

#121961 Sep 7, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It is? Heavens to Betsy!
Dear Diary. Today my good friend Adolph told me that German is the coolest language on earth, even though it sounds like vomiting and explosive diarrhea. He should know though. He is 100% Douche.
So this sounds like vomiting?


You also see beautiful German women in this video.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121962 Sep 7, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
So this sounds like vomiting?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =eRzbWPJHFqYXX
You also see beautiful German women in this video.
just teach your women to shave their legs and under arms. I hated that when I was over there. lol

“Peter hole is a pink twatt”

Since: Aug 14

Mumbai, India

#121963 Sep 7, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that science cannot disprove God. I also think that this is not the core of the arguments on topix or anywhere else.
The argument is whether one should take seriously a bronze age account of God versus the evidence and theories of modern science. "God" is a possibility. "God" as represented in the Bible or Koran is an absurdity.
When are we going to superhuman. when religion of athiesm will dominate the world

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121964 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
does science look for a god?
does science know how to test for a god?
does science know where to test for agod?
does science have tests for a god.
i find it hilarious that you all duck, dodge and avoid these questions on the mere fact if you answered them it would make you look like fools when asking the creationists for scientific evidence for god. lmao.
Actually pretty much everyone here has openly answered your questions squarely as follows:

does science look for a god? NO
does science know how to test for a god? NO
does science know where to test for a god? NO
does science have tests for a god. NO

That does not alter the fact that humans in general HAVE looked for some evidence or proof or test of God for 4000 years and have nothing useful to offer for their efforts.

Science on the other hand has made enormous progress with the questions it is equipped to ask, and answer. Including the development and diversification of life.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121965 Sep 7, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually pretty much everyone here has openly answered your questions squarely as follows:
does science look for a god? NO
does science know how to test for a god? NO
does science know where to test for a god? NO
does science have tests for a god. NO
That does not alter the fact that humans in general HAVE looked for some evidence or proof or test of God for 4000 years and have nothing useful to offer for their efforts.
Science on the other hand has made enormous progress with the questions it is equipped to ask, and answer. Including the development and diversification of life.
actually you are the only one that has answered them and answered them honestly. if you can find a yes or no answer from anyone else, please post them because I never saw them.

humans could have looked for god for 100,000 years but without knowledge of how and what to look for it would be a waste of time. which is why evolution was not found out until roughly 250 years ago.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121966 Sep 7, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
i think I have it figured out. you are still pissed because i actually am a rich educated guy from branson,(now staying at my small ranch in texas for a bit but will be back to missouri soon) and not a loser like you who's life evolves around topix. lmmfao.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121967 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
actually you are the only one that has answered them and answered them honestly. if you can find a yes or no answer from anyone else, please post them because I never saw them.
humans could have looked for god for 100,000 years but without knowledge of how and what to look for it would be a waste of time. which is why evolution was not found out until roughly 250 years ago.
So, the conclusion for now must be:

1. So far we have no reliable way of knowing if God exists or not.
2. We have developed reliable ways of learning other things through the scientific method.

Where an evidence based theory based on (2) is in conflict with a mere conjecture such as "six day creation" based on (1), then choose (2).

Should be that easy.

In fact its worse for Biblical creationists because even if God does exist, "the Bible is True" is not a statement that would automatically follow from that.

And its even better for evolutionists, because the statement "God exists" would be perfectly compatible with evolution, too.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121968 Sep 7, 2014
Manbrahmos wrote:
<quoted text>
When are we going to superhuman. when religion of athiesm will dominate the world
Lack of belief in something is not a religion.
1 post removed

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#121970 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
what claim did I make? the only claim I made is that we do not know if there is a god or not. you are the one that claims there isn't and you only claim that by what you believe and the argument from silence fallacy because your conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. you are a fallacy fool and don't even know it.
What is your definition of "a god?" In keeping the the thread title you have to go with the Biblical description - and you are ridiculed because that is ridiculous. You contend that the bronze age codex is merely exaggerated truths and generalize that people "believe in" biological evolution and astrophysics as a device of faith to deny creation stories. That is not reality. The evidence against the book of Genesis is not absent, it is cumulative. I suppose you perceive yourself as intelligent, honest and open-minded or even honorable and admirable to champion the house of cards. The record indicates otherwise.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#121971 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i think I have it figured out. you are still pissed because i actually am a rich educated guy from branson,(now staying at my small ranch in texas for a bit but will be back to missouri soon) and not a loser like you who's life evolves around topix. lmmfao.
Looks like you've figured wrongly, habitual Topix poster.
No one cares about what or where you are or what you have, only in what you type and how it might entertain them.
BTW, educated guy - the words you intended to use were "revolve" and "whose".

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#121972 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
does science look for a god?
does science know how to test for a god?
does science know where to test for agod?
does science have tests for a god.
i find it hilarious that you all duck, dodge and avoid these questions on the mere fact if you answered them it would make you look like fools when asking the creationists for scientific evidence for god. lmao.
Science has tested all the paranormal attributes of gods or ....
spirits, prayer, precognition, miracles, divinity, divine providence ect..ect..ect.
None of these attributes work out better than chance or hint toward any supernatural power.
There is no divine bloodline like the kings and aristocracy used to hold.
There is no godly intervention in the world.
As far as testing god itself I never seen one , apparently you haven't either.
Sure we could test it , so the first test begin...

Test 1.
All the god has to do is.... appear .

How long should we wait, how bout till later this evening?

Since: Jul 14

Location hidden

#121973 Sep 7, 2014
reporterreport wrote:
<quoted text>
Due to the incorrect way you posted it, it sounds like silence. Which would be a good thing for you to do also...
Ich habe es richtig gepostet. Bei mir funktionierts. ich kann nichts dafür, wenn du für die moderne Technik zu blöd bist.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#121974 Sep 7, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Ich habe es richtig gepostet. Bei mir funktionierts. ich kann nichts dafür, wenn du für die moderne Technik zu blöd bist.
It isn't how you posted, it's what you posted. "The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121975 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
does science look for a god?
does science know how to test for a god?
does science know where to test for agod?
does science have tests for a god.
i find it hilarious that you all duck, dodge and avoid these questions on the mere fact if you answered them it would make you look like fools when asking the creationists for scientific evidence for god. lmao.
Translation: I didn't like the answers, hence,'they were not provided'(addendum:'..... in order to avoid having to answer them')
1 post removed
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121977 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
les try this again. with the right words.
i agree the bible is full of stretched truths and exaggerated add on's to the stories. man still does those same things in this day and age. heII even science does that some.
'Stretched truths'?
Talking snakes? A man surviving 3 days in a fish belly? People growing 5 meters or taller? Greybeards ageing 500 years or older? A worldwide flood that never happened?'Stretched truth'???
You mean stretched crap and rubbish.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121978 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
oh I forgot. fossil can form in thousands of years up to millions of years. fossils can rapidly form in volcanic eruption areas. heII science has even created fossils in the lab in only 28 weeks.
1. No it didn't.
2. The exact tempo of the forming of fossils is not important.
3. Dan said nothing about the tempo of forming of fossils in his post.

Which point of Dan were you answering here again?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#121979 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree but: lets compare again
1) there are all kinds of tests for evolution that took many many years to learn.
Yes, knowledge is a progressive thing: as we learn more, we are able to learn more. But we knew about species and that they are different long before evolution was figured out.
2) science knows what to look for when it comes to evolution.
We have figured out how to process the evidence that was always there.
3) how many tests does science have for a god?
Without a precise definition of the concept of 'god', no tests are possible. But to even get a precise definition from the believers is impossible.
4) does science know what to look for when looking for a god?
Depends on which definition you use. Science certainly knows what to test for when discussing the 'god' of the Old Testament. nothing has been found. Science certainly knows what to look for when discussing Zeus or Athena: nothing on top of Mount Olympus has been found.
how can you demand evidence for something you know science cannot yet do? "
The reason science cannot do it is that it is claimed to be impossible from the start: anything 'supernatural' is, by definition, impossible to test. And *that* is the basic problem. Without *some* sort of testability, it *cannot* ever be scientific.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#121980 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
what scientific tests have been used to test for a god? if science can't do it how do you expect common man to do it?
Religious believers have been at this for millenia. I would expect *something* testable from them by now.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121981 Sep 7, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
What does this have to do with kindergarten?
You still didn't answer my question why you have learned German if you hate Germany.
In your childish, kindergarten mind all people who are arguing against YOU are, by default, hating GERMANY. Which is the grandiose kind of tattle you usually get with arrogant pricks and twerps.
STUPID questions by kindergarten-minded people are ENTIRELY worthless and uninteresting to answer.

I have a better question for you: why are you so desperately trying to let all people here DETEST you, and, if you don't pay attention, Germans generally?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#121982 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
again you keep going on about religions. religions are not science.
all tests took 100,000 years to develop or we would have had them sooner.
Wrong. We had tests for suitability of our tools long before that. We had tests for how to catch food animals and find food plants long before that. We had plenty of tests, but didn't apply them to structured learning about our environment.
you are again correct. both were walking this earth for 100,000 years. it took 97,400 to discover, test and understand what was under our feet. their god is supposedly not of this earth. we know so little about what is out in the universe. we have explored 1% or less. so again what tests have been used or could be used to test for something that is supposedly supernatural and not of this earth?
What tests are even *possible* for teasting the existence of a supernatural? Give a precise enough definition that soemthing can even be tested. Without that, you are talking garbage.
so if it can't be seen/observed then it must not exists? where would science be if that was the rule they followed? many things science knows were thoughts that lead to the discovery.
if it *cannot* be observed then it makes no sense to say it exists. That is different than not being observed yet.
again how can you demand evidence on something even science does not know hot to test for?
When evolution was proposed, tests were also proposed for it. When quantum mechanics was proposed, tests were also proposed for it. So, when a supernatural is proposed,*some* sort of tests shoudl be proposed for it. Without such, it is meaningless to talk about.
the honest answer is we don't know. we don't know what or how to test for a god, super natural being. etc. etc. until we can and do test for them, if they exists, then and only then can we say yes or no. until then it is nothing but belief,,, whether your belief is yes or no.
At some point that lack of tests means it isn't testable.

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 White House will override Obama's climate plan 3 min Big Al 3,334
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min BlueFlag 1,707,776
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 7 min June VanDerMark 330,567
News FBI in public fight with Trump over releasing R... 11 min spud 1,667
News The Latest: Angry students, parents confront Se... 14 min Kilroy 26
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 15 min Bear Claw 60,128
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... (Nov '16) 21 min TdHln 9,192
News 'Get on the Right Side': Shooting Survivors Dec... 41 min inbred Genius 275
News 2 dead, 17 wounded in shooting at Kentucky high... 1 hr The Tall Cool One 838
More from around the web