Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221804 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

#76258 Feb 16, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Subtles, i would say that is your own level of ignorance. You or any one else, can not disprove the existence of God.
You cannot disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And you know this. That's why you didn't even try.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76259 Feb 16, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Answer the question, how did the universe came into existence or form?
I want a vivid or clear response in English.
No you don't.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76260 Feb 16, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Foul!
That is a dishonest comments from you, i knew what he meant, but i decided to let him know some certain things beyond his memory.
It's not a dishonest comment from him.

EVERYTHING is beyond your memory because any fact which is inconvenient is automatically deleted from Chuck's mind.

You wanted VALID archaeological evidence of Harry Potter.

You claimed real places backed up the Bible and so were provided with real places that backed up Harry Potter.

Then you claimed that you asked for PEOPLE even though you DID NOT.

Then you were GIVEN archaeological evidence of people that backed up Harry Potter.

You then LIED YOUR BIG FAT AZZ OFF and said that all this evidence was insufficient, even though it is JUST as valid as YOUR evidence for the Bible.

I also pointed out to you 6 MONTHS AGO that the Egyptians STILL outweigh the Bible with archaeological evidence, including both places AND people.

You have since wiped it from your memory just like you always do.

Just like you did when you started talking about Roman historians backing up Jesus even though we've demonstrated that they do not. MANY MANY times over on THIS very thread.

Why do you fundies always lie so much, Chuck?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76261 Feb 16, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And again, others do worship this God through gods, goddesses, mediums, etc.
God is just one, others are minors.
Your claims are baseless. You have no way of knowing if Vishnu is in fact the real big daddy.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76262 Feb 16, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
What does Richard Dawkins, a mortal, understood about the origin of the universe?
Not much, since he's a biologist and not a cosmologist.

And I bet he still knows a trillion times more than you.

Other than how to speak English, the education you've demonstrated thus far on this thread is less than zero.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76263 Feb 16, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
It might 'appear' to be flat at this time, with current scientific understanding...the same as the earth was consider flat at one time but was later discarded...
Never the less...why aren't the obvious intrinsic intelligent processes that govern the Universe never addressed by science?
Because they aren't obvious.

That's why you can't demonstrate them.

Neither can the scientific community.
xxxooxxx wrote:
These processes are the very foundation in the belief in God.
But yet, science refuses to look at the actual processes behind the Universe...
Ah, so you are aware of SCIENTIFICALLY OBSERVABLE AND VERIFIABLE processes which the ENTIRE scientific community does NOT?

Interesting.

Please elaborate.
xxxooxxx wrote:
Science just calls these processes "natural" ("Existing in or caused by nature")but never really questions the actual processes directly.
Why?
They do question them all the time.

YOU are the one who claims there are OTHER processes which they are somehow unaware of.

Yet somehow you always FAIL to point them out.

Did you forget that I asked you a ton of times over to present us with evidence of IDC and all you did was point me to things that humans made?

And yet you still haven't appeared to understand the problem you have...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76265 Feb 16, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is an ideology, that for the most part is anti-religion...
No it isn't. That's why plenty of religious people are scientists.

In fact we've pointed this out to you months ago.

The fact you're repeating this lie means you're a liar.

If science is mere "religious ideology" then stop taking medicine, stop using your computer, stop going to the shops, using your car, anything. Go back to living in the woods and go hunt for your own chickens.

You won't because you're a hypocrite.
xxxooxxx wrote:
There are really only two ways to look at the creation of the Universe...either it is the result of a inconceivable intelligence ...or it somehow magically manifested itself out of nothing?
So which is more rational?
Actually there are more than two ways. Here's some more:

1 - The universe has always been here in some form or another.

2 - The universe manifested itself by NON-magical means.

3 - The universe manifested itself by a CONCEIVABLE intelligent agent, such as (a) God or Gods.

Rather amusing that in one post you're claiming that there's conceivable scientific evidence for the intelligent creation of the universe and in the very next post you're arguing that it's INconceivable.

If it's INconceivable then you have no case. Because you cannot conceive of it. QED.

In my humble opinion? If such an entity exists, this thing creates entire universes in its spare time as a hobby. There is NO WAY humans are gonna have a hope in hell of comprehending such an entity.

Fundamentalist ego presumes otherwise. And not only that, but that said entity made the entire thing just for them.

Whoooowaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76266 Feb 16, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"
Observer effect (physics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_...
"However in quantum mechanics, which deals with very small objects, it is not possible to observe a system without changing the system, so the observer must be considered part of the system being observed."
..."and God saw that it was good."
omnipresent...
Adjective:
1. Present everywhere at the same time.
Luke 17:21
"nor will they say,‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”
Ah, quantum woo. Note that in actual quantum mechanics it does not *require* an external observer, only that any such observer (such as humans) would be a part of that system. And the problem with those observers, as demonstrated by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, is that the observation itself causes a change which then makes the *complete* actual state of the system unknown. Which is why one can only know either the direction OR the position of a travelling particle but NOT both. For the observation would add energy to said particle thus affecting both position and direction. This causes a paradox for would-be quantum-woo loving creationists.

And funny, once again XO claims science is "anti-religion", and here she tries pretending that science supports her creationist position.

Never let it be said that fundies are not hypocritical.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76267 Feb 16, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
William A. Dembski
Shame that Dumbski is a mathematician, not a scientist. And doesn't know a thing about biology, chemistry, or physics. Oh, and I'm sure the fact that he's just another dishonest fundie liar for Jesus apologist is just a coincidence.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76268 Feb 16, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”
&#8213; Michael Denton
Ah, still that old chestnut. The fact that Denton accepts evolution and doesn't hold the same fundie views as he used to has not stopped fundies from quoting him from his old days. And unlike you, they likely knew that but still quoted him anyway.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76269 Feb 16, 2013
zander714 wrote:
The refusal to acknowledge intelligent design in the universe laughable.
One cannot refuse to acknowledge what has not been presented.

So by all means, I'm all ears. I shall ask you the same question that I've had no answer for for 7 years:

What exactly IS the "scientific theory" of IDC?

I thank you in advance for not answering.

Don't worry though. Even the mooks who made it up haven't been able to answer it either. In fact they also admitted they don't have one.

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#76270 Feb 16, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
“Not only Herod many other biblical characters have been verified archaeologically.
Others not yet discovered can not make the bible to be false.
The bible once again, is real!"
I love the way you are claimining conclusive evidence through inductive reasoning.
The final chorus from the Bach Saint Matthew Passion is in c minor.
The Bach Passacaglia and Fugue is in c minor.
The Mozart piano sonata, K 457, is in c minor.
The Haydn piano sonata, Hob. 16-20, is in c minor.
The Schuber piano sonata, D 958, is in c minor.
Beethoven's Fifth Sympony is in c minor.
Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata is in c minor.
Brhams' First Symphony is in c minor.
The Burgmuller Ballade, op. 100 no. 15, is in c minor.
#3 and #6 of "Buds and Blossoms" by Cornelius Gurlitt are in c minor.
"The Doll's Burial," #7 in the Tschaikovsky Album for the Young is in c minor.
The Chopin mazurkas op. 30 no. 1 and op. 56 no. 3 are in c minor.
The Chopin prelude op. 28 no. 20 is in c minor.
The Chopin nocturne op. 48 no. 1 is in c minor.
The Chopin Revolutionary Etude is in c minor.
The Saint-Saens Organ Symphony is in c minor.
Rachmaninoff’s Second Piano Concerto is in c minor.
Mahler’s Second Symphony is in c minor.
It’s not just classical music, either.
“As Long As You Love Me” by Justin Bieber is in c minor.
"Could It Be Magic” by Barry Manilow is in c minor.
"Fireflies” by Owl City is in c minor.
"Judas” by Lady Gaga is in c minor.
"Rolling in the Deep” by Adele is in c minor.
"Skyfall” by Paul Epworth is in c minor.
"Turn Me On” by David Guetta is in c minor.
"Paparazzi” by Lady Gaga is in c minor.
"Where Have You Been” by Rihanna is in c minor.
Wow! Look how many musical compositions I’ve listed!
And they’re all in c minor!
I guess that proves that every musical composition ever written is in c minor!
bohart

White Pine, TN

#76271 Feb 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not an "explosion", but an expansion of space-time. Keep in mind the words you ascribe to Einstein here are subjective. Also keep in mind that even Einstein could be wrong, such as his ideas about a steady-state universe.
By the way, if the universe was "comprehensible", then how come that no-one on the planet knows for definite how it started?
All I did was point out that at LEAST up until the point of singularity, the Big Bang is the ONLY scientific theory that makes successful scientific predictions based upon observable phenomena, such as predicting background radiation levels at approx 3 parts per million.
In fact when I say it's the only scientific theory that makes such predictions, not only that, it's the only theory in town.
I ain't seen YOU come up with anything better.(shrug)
And considering your extreme lack of education it's extremely likely that you ever will.
Ahh! the typical puddle gooist defense mechanism, when you lack the faith in the goo you lack education, yet the puddle gooists themselves have only a vague, unprovable theory of lifes beginnings....{ without testable hypotheses and repeatable results all you have is personal opinion, not actual knowledge}..

Damn! your lack of understandable knowledge concerning science renders you incapable of an informed opinon on the subject. Ergo you are a dumbass blinded by a zealous faith in nothing.
bohart

White Pine, TN

#76272 Feb 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No it isn't. That's why plenty of religious people are scientists.
In fact we've pointed this out to you months ago.
The fact you're repeating this lie means you're a liar.
If science is mere "religious ideology" then stop taking medicine, stop using your computer, stop going to the shops, using your car, anything. Go back to living in the woods and go hunt for your own chickens.
You won't because you're a hypocrite.
<quoted text>
Actually there are more than two ways. Here's some more:
1 - The universe has always been here in some form or another.
2 - The universe manifested itself by NON-magical means.
3 - The universe manifested itself by a CONCEIVABLE intelligent agent, such as (a) God or Gods.
Rather amusing that in one post you're claiming that there's conceivable scientific evidence for the intelligent creation of the universe and in the very next post you're arguing that it's INconceivable.
If it's INconceivable then you have no case. Because you cannot conceive of it. QED.
In my humble opinion? If such an entity exists, this thing creates entire universes in its spare time as a hobby. There is NO WAY humans are gonna have a hope in hell of comprehending such an entity.
Fundamentalist ego presumes otherwise. And not only that, but that said entity made the entire thing just for them.
Whoooowaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
1 There has been evidence of the universes beginning, shattering the 19th century thought of an eternal universe.
2.There is zero evidence , ZERO, of the universe coming into being on its own, only the zealous puddle religionists believe that.
3. An intelligent agent causing the universe fits with # 1, and agrees with #2 that things need a cause.

As for you not believeing it , you puddle gooists have a favorite line ,...your incredulity is not an arguement.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#76273 Feb 16, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
1 There has been evidence of the universes beginning, shattering the 19th century thought of an eternal universe.
2.There is zero evidence , ZERO, of the universe coming into being on its own, only the zealous puddle religionists believe that.
3. An intelligent agent causing the universe fits with # 1, and agrees with #2 that things need a cause.
As for you not believeing it , you puddle gooists have a favorite line ,...your incredulity is not an arguement.
Wow blowhard got one right. But number two is wrong of course.

bohart did you know that each and every time that you have claimed there was "zero evidence" for an event you have been wrong here?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#76274 Feb 16, 2013
bohart, do you think that you can answer the simple Biblical question that Langoiers failed at?
FREE SERVANT
#76275 Feb 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
One cannot refuse to acknowledge what has not been presented.
So by all means, I'm all ears. I shall ask you the same question that I've had no answer for for 7 years:
What exactly IS the "scientific theory" of IDC?
I thank you in advance for not answering.
Don't worry though. Even the mooks who made it up haven't been able to answer it either. In fact they also admitted they don't have one.
SCPID theory is a good one!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#76276 Feb 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, the good old fundamentalist revenge fantasy. You must be one of them "true Christians" we keep hearing about.
Fact is, the FSM is every bit as valid as your god. Both concepts are non-falsifiable.
There's only one flaw in your claim that the FSM is as valid as God...

everybody knows that the FSM was made up to mock the belief in God.


Your posts are so inconsistent, and fundamentally full of rhetorical BS that they don't even merit a reply. So I will not waste my time trying to address your constant flip flopping and obvious avoidance of the real issues at hand.
FREE SERVANT
#76277 Feb 17, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Charles Idemi wrote:
&#8220;Not only Herod many other biblical characters have been verified archaeologically.
Others not yet discovered can not make the bible to be false.
The bible once again, is real!"
I love the way you are claimining conclusive evidence through inductive reasoning.
The final chorus from the Bach Saint Matthew Passion is in c minor.
The Bach Passacaglia and Fugue is in c minor.
The Mozart piano sonata, K 457, is in c minor.
The Haydn piano sonata, Hob. 16-20, is in c minor.
The Schuber piano sonata, D 958, is in c minor.
Beethoven's Fifth Sympony is in c minor.
Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata is in c minor.
Brhams' First Symphony is in c minor.
The Burgmuller Ballade, op. 100 no. 15, is in c minor.
#3 and #6 of "Buds and Blossoms" by Cornelius Gurlitt are in c minor.
"The Doll's Burial," #7 in the Tschaikovsky Album for the Young is in c minor.
The Chopin mazurkas op. 30 no. 1 and op. 56 no. 3 are in c minor.
The Chopin prelude op. 28 no. 20 is in c minor.
The Chopin nocturne op. 48 no. 1 is in c minor.
The Chopin Revolutionary Etude is in c minor.
The Saint-Saens Organ Symphony is in c minor.
Rachmaninoff&#8217;s Second Piano Concerto is in c minor.
Mahler&#8217;s Second Symphony is in c minor.
It&#8217;s not just classical music, either.
&#8220;As Long As You Love Me&#8221; by Justin Bieber is in c minor.
"Could It Be Magic&#8221; by Barry Manilow is in c minor.
"Fireflies&#8221; by Owl City is in c minor.
"Judas&#8221; by Lady Gaga is in c minor.
"Rolling in the Deep&#8221; by Adele is in c minor.
"Skyfall&#8221; by Paul Epworth is in c minor.
"Turn Me On&#8221; by David Guetta is in c minor.
"Paparazzi&#8221; by Lady Gaga is in c minor.
"Where Have You Been&#8221; by Rihanna is in c minor.
Wow! Look how many musical compositions I&#8217;ve listed!
And they&#8217;re all in c minor!
I guess that proves that every musical composition ever written is in c minor!
No, but it is safe to say C or D or E or F or G or A or B were used in every one most commonly repeating three of these.
FREE SERVANT
#76278 Feb 17, 2013
Nature has a movement with uniform and patterned recurrence of a beat, accent, or the like, and the organization of this is in particular kinds of systematic forms which are brought about by a series of events that are regularly repeated in the same order. SCP theory explains this.

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 Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 min Gotti 16,087
News Psychiatrists say Trump is mentally ill 2 min autistic mormon 106
News 'Let Obamacare fail,' Trump says after GOP plan... 3 min Dee Dee Dee 21
News Trump defends son after disclosure of Russian e... 5 min IMpeach Now 20
News Mammoth Lakes area hit by swarm of hundreds of ... 7 min Denizen_Kate 3
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 13 min JCPete 279,562
News Why don't Christian conservatives worry about c... 14 min likeallcucksarech... 137
More from around the web