Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 comments on the Jan 6, 2011, Best of New Orleans story 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: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#36940 Aug 8, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>

All scientists know this, including L. Harrison Matthews. In his forward to Darwin's 1971 edition of "Origin of the Species", Matthews says, ""...Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation--both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." In other words, the theory of evolution is a theory based on FAITH, rather than scientific fact."
Ever since the first appearance of life on earth a process of evolution from comparatively simple to more complex organisms has been going on.[Matthews 1975]

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#36941 Aug 8, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
Evolutionists have their entire lives and reputations resting upon Darwin's theory.
If Evolution was utterly disproved tomorrow scientists would accept it and move on. In fact, that would probably be a more exciting time for Biology then the development of quantum physics was for Physicists in the early 20th century.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#36942 Aug 8, 2012
Would a girl kissing a frog and the frog turning into a prince be considered evolution?

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#36943 Aug 8, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
Would a girl kissing a frog and the frog turning into a prince be considered evolution?
Why is that what happened to you?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#36944 Aug 8, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevo lu1.html
"Radioactive helium is generated by decaying uranium atoms. Dr. Melvin Cook, a former Nobel-prize nominee, says that this helium is constantly being released into our atmosphere, and that there are currently about a million-billion grams of this helium in our atmosphere. Yet, this is a very small number compared to what it would be if the earth were over 4.5 billion years old. According to Cook's measurements, the earth can't be over 10,000 to 15,000 years old.
The half life of the earth's magnetic field is believed to be less than 1400 years. That is, 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been twice as strong as it is today. Only 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as
the sun! WHO KNOWS what it would have been like 4.5 billion years ago!?
You see, these are the things that are commonly ignored by "serious scientists." The theory of evolution is an UNSCIENTIFIC theory, which is made up of blind guesswork and outright lying. It cannot be proven by the scientific laws of observation and experimentation. Darwin's theory is nothing more than a religious faith for high-minded people who think they're too smart for God. The Lord Jesus Christ was a Creationist (Matt. 19:4; Mark 13:19), and when we compare His life work to the life work of Darwin and his followers, we find a much better Way in Jesus Christ and in the written word of God."
After posting all that crap above how does it feel to know that REAL science doesn't care a bit. They are right and all the crap you find on religious sites is just that...crap.

They are wrong and you are wrong, I suggest you get over it.
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#36945 Aug 8, 2012
Boring
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#36946 Aug 9, 2012
Real Science Has An Agenda, And is Driven By Grants And Corruption.

Another Reason They Dont Explore Many Evidences, Is Because They Cannot Control The Outcome.

Trying To Explain Away God by An Entity That Does Not Have A Interest In Metaphysical, Or Super Natural....Is An Oxymoron.

This Whole Discussion About Science Being Some Sort OF Authority On The Existence Of A Creator, Is Ludicrous.
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#36947 Aug 9, 2012
Oh...And Science Is Way More Left, Then Right

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#36948 Aug 9, 2012
wolverine wrote:
Oh...And Science Is Way More Left, Then Right
It is neither. Science is apolitical, secular and has no philosophy. Also, it does not try to disprove a creator.

Off topic, but have you noticed that you tend to capitalize every word?

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#36949 Aug 9, 2012
wolverine wrote:
Oh...And Science Is Way More Left, Then Right
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
It is neither. Science is apolitical, secular and has no philosophy. Also, it does not try to disprove a creator.
Off topic, but have you noticed that you tend to capitalize every word?
thiS iS A verY scientifiC answeR , accordinG tO wolviE. loL

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#36950 Aug 9, 2012
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
It is neither. Science is apolitical, secular and has no philosophy. Also, it does not try to disprove a creator.
Off topic, but have you noticed that you tend to capitalize every word?
Yes, You Take Your Post, Put It In MS Word, Tell It To Capitalize Each Word, Then Paste It Into Here. If You Are Going To Post Under Several Names, You Have To Change Up The Writing Styles Somehow!
I Love People Now

Buffalo, NY

#36951 Aug 9, 2012
way no

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#36952 Aug 9, 2012
wolverine wrote:
Real Science Has An Agenda, And is Driven By Grants And Corruption.
Another Reason They Dont Explore Many Evidences, Is Because They Cannot Control The Outcome.
Trying To Explain Away God by An Entity That Does Not Have A Interest In Metaphysical, Or Super Natural....Is An Oxymoron.
This Whole Discussion About Science Being Some Sort OF Authority On The Existence Of A Creator, Is Ludicrous.
The final, pathetic, desperate approach of fundamentalists, when science presents incontrovertible evidence that at least some of their fairy tales cannot be true, is to try to discredit the whole discipline and its practitioners.

The agenda of real science is to learn what we can about the world around us using the world around us as the evidence, not approaching the task with preconceived notions.

Individual scientists may be corrupt - its a human endeavor of course - but the scientific method is uniquely structured to identify and eliminate poor research and false conclusions. Frauds get discovered.

Science does not try to explain away God. However, when science discovers a natural process operating where previously people attributed a phenomenon to God or the gods, then its natural that the idea of God will recede into the background. We no longer invoke God to explain lightning, the orbits of planets, the shining of the sun, disease, eruptions, the development of life, and so on. We can understand these things in terms of natural processes.

Whether you want to believe in God or not is your business. Our business is that young minds are not corrupted by false and magical explanations for phenomena that are perfectly natural and can be understood rationally. Just keep your superstitious bullshit out of the classroom, that is all most people demand.
yessir

Alexandria, VA

#36953 Aug 9, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing negates the possibility of a designer. That's the problem with the concept - it's not falsifiable. Therefore it's not verifiable.

It could even be quite possible that some designer of sorts is responsible for our universe and everything in it.

Only problem for you fundies is, is that it did things different to the way you think it did.
You participate in the error of applying a false constraint on truth: verifiability.

Our ability (or inability) to convince ourselves of reality does not in any way change reality. The earth orbited the sun long before we convinced ourselves that this was true.

The consequence of the error of 'verifiability' is that one's mind becomes closed - so much so, in fact, that even the evidence itself which most clearly points to a notion that one refuses to consider (for reasons of 'verifiability') is discounted and disregarded.
SUMMER

Williamsburg, VA

#36954 Aug 9, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The final, pathetic, desperate approach of fundamentalists, when science presents incontrovertible evidence that at least some of their fairy tales cannot be true, is to try to discredit the whole discipline and its practitioners.
The agenda of real science is to learn what we can about the world around us using the world around us as the evidence, not approaching the task with preconceived notions.
Individual scientists may be corrupt - its a human endeavor of course - but the scientific method is uniquely structured to identify and eliminate poor research and false conclusions. Frauds get discovered.
Science does not try to explain away God. However, when science discovers a natural process operating where previously people attributed a phenomenon to God or the gods, then its natural that the idea of God will recede into the background. We no longer invoke God to explain lightning, the orbits of planets, the shining of the sun, disease, eruptions, the development of life, and so on. We can understand these things in terms of natural processes.
Whether you want to believe in God or not is your business. Our business is that young minds are not corrupted by false and magical explanations for phenomena that are perfectly natural and can be understood rationally. Just keep your superstitious bullshit out of the classroom, that is all most people demand.
If they do not find any kind of life on Mars, would this support the creation theory of special purpose for Earth?

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#36955 Aug 9, 2012
yessir wrote:
<quoted text>
You participate in the error of applying a false constraint on truth: verifiability.
Our ability (or inability) to convince ourselves of reality does not in any way change reality. The earth orbited the sun long before we convinced ourselves that this was true.
The consequence of the error of 'verifiability' is that one's mind becomes closed - so much so, in fact, that even the evidence itself which most clearly points to a notion that one refuses to consider (for reasons of 'verifiability') is discounted and disregarded.
That is some pretty good double talk you got going on! You threw in a straw man, an argument from fallacy, and an insult, all without saying anything of value.

Since: Aug 12

Tucson, AZ

#36956 Aug 9, 2012
SUMMER wrote:
<quoted text>If they do not find any kind of life on Mars, would this support the creation theory of special purpose for Earth?
Really dude? Is that a legitimate question or r do u think that earth and mars are the only 2 planets in the galaxy in the?
Carlin Has It Right

Deep River, CT

#36957 Aug 9, 2012
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36958 Aug 9, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevo lu1.html
"Evolution:
Fact or Fiction?
Copyright © 1997 James L. Melton
Published by Bible Baptist Church, Sharon, TN
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." (Romans 1:20-23)
These inspired words of God should be posted over the door to every science and biology lab in every state university in America. Every person born into the world is born with enough conscience to tell him that God created the Heaven and the Earth. If you do not believe that God created the Heaven and the Earth, then it is because you've allowed someone to educate you out of your faith in God's word. You have been tricked into forsaking the Bible by placing your faith in a man-made religion called "Evolution.""
And I would encourage you to post those words over every school science class.

The fallout would be fun.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36959 Aug 9, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
"Someone says, "Evolution is not a religion." Evolution IS a religion, because it lacks scientific evidence, thus requiring it's adherents to follow Darwin's theory by FAITH.
In that case you should have no problem in going back and actually addressing the evidence which has been presented. We've been waiting for months.

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.

Republican Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Poll: Majority want businesses to serve gay wed... 3 min goonsquad 19
News Scott Walker is 2016's Mitt Romney 3 min Holla Isabella 2
News Majority Oppose 'Religious Freedom' Laws That C... 4 min xxxrayted 92
News Hillary approval ratings slip after State email... 7 min Ralph 402
News Obama turns up heat on climate change debate in... 10 min goonsquad 55
News 2016 GOP Hopefuls Hold Fire After Drone Disclos... 10 min barefoot2626 20
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 14 min HILLARY 2016 179,081
More from around the web