Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173593 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

Birkenhead, UK

#37831 Aug 13, 2012
RU CRS wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you think all things seem to follow orderly patterns?
We still don't care Mikey.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#37832 Aug 13, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
How does the non-existence of "monkey professors" provide evidence for the existence of a god?(There isn't anything in the process of evolution that requires all species to evolve in the exact same way.)
<quoted text>
Can you name *one* way?
This question has been answered previously...
Apes or great apes can never be a creator like humans, why, because they are not created in the likeness of God...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37833 Aug 13, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
I Lived These Eras.....He's Not Wrong, And Gave A List Of Sources You Could Check At The End Of The Article.
LIberal/Atheists Are The Offspring Of Marxists, Socialist, And Communists....End Of Story
Like Rome....This is The Reason For our Failures.
Rome was Christian when it fell. You boys also destroyed the library of Alexandria before that happened.

Oops.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37834 Aug 13, 2012
wolverine wrote:
Science, Has Been Influenced By Nazis, Since The Second World War. America Allowed And Even Coveted These Scientists To Help With The MIlitary Aspects.
These Same Nazi Scientists Formed The Elite Who Dictate Whats Considered Worthy To Study Or Publish.
Their Offspring Are The Elite In Science And Many Other Factions In America.
" Beat You From With-in "
Seems To Have Worked.
Whoa, hold on there bucko! The Nazi's HATED the liberal socialist Commies! And to top that, they were CHRISTIAN. These guys were YOUR BOYS!

WE are the evil atheist socialist liberal Commies, remember?

Sheesh, try to remember which side you're on, eh?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37835 Aug 13, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Great apes???
We are only to some extent related, but no matter how you colour it, they(humans) can never be apes...
No, actually they ARE apes. Hominid bipeds.

And it was a Christian who pointed it out.

He even wrote back to a bunch of whiny Christians who complained about being called apes, asking them if there was a good scientific reason for them to be classified otherwise.

He didn't get one.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#37836 Aug 13, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
What is a Scientific Theory?
Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is. As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several
Creationist semantics. Layman language is not accurate enough for scientific endeavors. The scientific community has to have higher standards of matters, including the use of labels which must also be more specific and descriptive. Try studying science instead of reading and then copy-pasting from a creatard website.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37837 Aug 13, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
No. It's because we DO understand them we attribute them to God.
Ah.

Well that's useless then ain't it?(shrug)

Rather than simply giving Him the credit, you could at least explain HOW He did it.

But all we get is "God works in mysterious ways"...

Yeah, great "understanding" ya got there, pardnuh.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37838 Aug 13, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Claim.....Now, Prove It
What, you missed it the last hundred times?

Of course you did. I bet you also missed that bigfoot too, and one day it'll come back. And in greater numbers.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37839 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're dead wrong.
Foxglove produces digitalis... It doesn't have to be processed. Saying it's poisonous ignores the entire issue. If it just needed poison to enhance survival, then why did it need to also evolve properties that save heart patients? Coincidence? I guess you're going to have to swallow hundreds of fortuitous coincidences to rebut my argument.
How is it fortuitous to foxglove?

If it's your contention it was designed to save heart patients then surely it would have been designed without the need for prior processing, yes?

Or even better, we could have been designed with better hearts.

If your contention is that these were designed then obviously you have a mechanism and evidence of it, yes? After all, you wanted to put ID/Creationism back in play and not considered a pseudo-science, right?

What's the "scientific theory" of ID?
HTS wrote:
You description of carrots and potatoes likewise was a total dodge. Both plants are nutritious and enhance the survival of animal species. These properties IMPAIR the plants because they are consumed. The fact that a potato has multiple eyes is irrelevant. Why is it nutritious to animals?
At this point I'm gonna have to conclude you're just a kitten hater. Teh stoopid burns.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#37840 Aug 13, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
{Snip of Drivel}

Table 1. Close examination reveals that evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions—which range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheism—than to matters of empirical science.
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp
Hey, Flash! That's cosmology. Not evolution.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37841 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Speak for yourself.
I'm speaking on behalf of biology. References are also available.

After all, we supply it every single time.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#37842 Aug 13, 2012
Why should current science be able to stop death?
<quoted text>
You didn't answer my question:*Why* should current science be able to stop death?
Charles Idemi wrote:
Be practical!
I am giving you a direct answer, they can never stop death
How does the fact that current science cannot stop death tell us that there is a god?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37843 Aug 13, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
Feigned(?) Ignorance
A classic example of evolutionist pretending may be found at the “Talk.Origins Archive,” an evolutionist website professing to “explore” origins, yet advocating only evolutionary perspectives. There, a “welcome” document suggests to prospective participants in the evolution/creation debate, that to “really impress the regulars” they should “come prepared with a scientific Theory of Creation,” which is then described as “the Holy Grail of the origins debate”—since (it is claimed)“no one’s ever seen it.”[2] Considering the volume of literature that has been published by the creation science community[3] the only two possible bases upon which one could claim to have never seen a theory of creation are: 1) willful ignorance or 2) outright dishonesty.
Many arguments advanced in support of evolutionary beliefs do indeed suggest that willful ignorance is indeed widespread among adherents of evolutionism. Their criticisms are often focused on simplistic caricatures instead of authentic creation science concepts. Such “straw man” caricatures are easily felled by little more than sophomoric derision, giving evolutionists (and many an unwitting observer) the deceptive impression that the creation model has been effectively undone. These same caricatures (and their Quixotic “challengers”) persist in peppering the landscape of debate, despite an abundance of informative explanations and clarifications, patiently and repeatedly proffered by a growing number of individual creationists and several creationary organizations.
Many of evolution’s proponents have thus been exposed to accurate and empirically relevant descriptions of the creation paradigm, yet they continue to limit their response to dismantling a caricature. They either pretend not be unaware of anything better than the arsenal of “straw men” they parade before the public eye, or they willfully ignore what the other side is saying. Neither tactic is representative of sound scholarship, reasonable scientific debate, or ethical standards worthy of admiration. Ironically (perhaps as a diversionary tactic?), some of them publish or cite web pages supposedly documenting “dishonesty” among leading creationists.
Unfortunately they don't explain their "theory", just whine about the mean old evolutionists.

Aw.

:-(
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37844 Aug 13, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Many ways...
A creator made this to be possible...
Possibly.

But if it did, it used evolution. Or God is a liar.

Your theological problems ain't ours.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#37845 Aug 13, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, actually they ARE apes. Hominid bipeds.
And it was a Christian who pointed it out.
He even wrote back to a bunch of whiny Christians who complained about being called apes, asking them if there was a good scientific reason for them to be classified otherwise.
He didn't get one.
He said that based on the similarities...
Their functions, tells us the other wise...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37846 Aug 13, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
What is a Scientific Theory?
Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is. As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined. This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation). Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists’ semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debate—vis-à-vis the empirical evidence—may proceed unhindered.
The word “theory” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:
theo·ry n. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.
Likewise,“science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:
sci·ence n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied
It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached. This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:
nat·u·ral·ism n. philos. the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance
Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is. The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism. It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God. While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God.“Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery,” they reason,“the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.” Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.
I thank you for posting this, as it's a perfect demonstration why creationism fails scientifically. They complain that the "supernatural" is ruled out. The scientific method actually doesn't rule it out at all.

It merely requires that the fundie's claims pass the scientific method.

Unfortunately, they never can.

So for practical reasons only, the "supernatural" is considered irrelevant until the fundies can make it work.

Jesus will come back first.
bohart

Newport, TN

#37847 Aug 13, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are just plain lying. The evidence supporting Abiogenesis is surprisingly simple, I am not surprised you fail to understand it. Here it is, in brief form:
In the past there is evidnece that there was no life on Earth. At a point evidence of life is present. So no life -- then life. There, evidence for Abiogenesis!
Now, the real Abiogenesis question is HOW did it happen, not if it happened. We are still working on that question. Of course, the answer to that question doesn't have any impact on evolutionary theory. Whether God, Aliens, or chemistry did it, doesn't really matter for evolution.
What a moron you are masquarading your religion as science,... there was no life , then there was life, and shazzam! like Gomer Pyle abiogenesis must have worked.Again you have ZERO EVIDENCE OF ABIOGENESIS WORKING,ZERO!Why not go for the alien puddle gooists theory that life came from outer space, it hasn't failed in a lab and only requires your immense faith to work.You are about as scientific as a witch doctor with that statement, you are a puddle goo shaman , voodoo priest,and a poser
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37848 Aug 13, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>This question has been answered...
"We had a test in science today, and the answer to every question was 'God did it'."

– Lisa Simpson
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37849 Aug 13, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>He said that based on the similarities...
Their functions, tells us the other wise...
What is the function of humans and how can we tell?

What is the function of the other great apes and how can we tell?

What is the barrier that prevents common ancestry?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37850 Aug 13, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
What a moron you are masquarading your religion as science,... there was no life , then there was life, and shazzam! like Gomer Pyle abiogenesis must have worked.Again you have ZERO EVIDENCE OF ABIOGENESIS WORKING,ZERO!Why not go for the alien puddle gooists theory that life came from outer space, it hasn't failed in a lab and only requires your immense faith to work.You are about as scientific as a witch doctor with that statement, you are a puddle goo shaman , voodoo priest,and a poser
http://www.sundriesshack.com/wp-content/uploa...

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 Trump, Carson in close fight in Iowa poll 35 min serfs up 24
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 44 min serfs up 245
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 hr g wallace 193,743
News 'Anchor baby' fight scrambles Republican field 3 hr taletha 205
News Iowa poll: Trump, Carson lead GOP race 4 hr serfs up 15
News Trump would deport children of illegal immigrants 4 hr Sal 456
News Obama Calls for Two Years of Free Community Col... (Jan '15) 5 hr That item 1,324
More from around the web