Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
28,101 - 28,120 of 114,573 Comments Last updated 14 min ago
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29022
Jun 1, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
They can't grasp this stuff.
Nice try but were just wasting our time here.
Nice post Though
Yeah, you *are* wasting your time preaching.(shrug)
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29023
Jun 1, 2012
 
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>You are still misinterpreting...

The Birth of Jesus

Prophecy: Jesus to be born in Bethlehem
Old Testament Reference: Micah 5:2
New Testament Fulfillment: Luke 2:4-7
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting. " (Micah 5:2)

"Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. " (Luke 2:4-7)
Along these lines have you seen the DVD "The Star of Bethlehem"
It's pretty good.
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29024
Jun 1, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>They can't grasp this stuff.
Nice try but were just wasting our time here.

Nice post Though
We're.(sorry about that)

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29025
Jun 1, 2012
 
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
The prophecy doesn't say the people would accept Him as ruler...at least at first anyways. His bloodline, humanly speaking comes through David. And He does rule...from heaven.
The book is a Jewish holy book. They are speaking of and to the Jewish people. Clearly, this is meant to predict a king that will rule over the Jewish people.

Jesus is not accepted by the Jews.

You are in a circle again.

You claim Jesus is God because of these prophecies.
This prophecy is false (as I've just pointed out)
Your response is that it will be true later/Jesus is in heaven.

However BOTH of those responses are predicated on the first part being true.

You can't use #1 to prove #1.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29028
Jun 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No way! Cthulhu killed and ate Zeus with a side of lamb chop. Cthulhu guides us all now.
Come to think of it, the christian bible IS Cthulhu.
Please. Lovecraft was a pussy. Zeus is the MAN. He rapes chicks while disguised as a swan (?!), throws lightning bolts wherever he wants when people don't do things just the way he likes, he gets lots of awesome sacrifices of meats and wine, and he doesn't even have to PRESIDE over the other gods...he is simply far more powerful and rules by fiat based on his prowess. He's like an omnipotent electric dick.
yessir

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29029
Jun 1, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>Then explain why it took so long for an all powerful Jewish Wizard to get things to where they are now.

If there is a "designer" guiding the molecules, why did it take BILLIONS of years?
Did it? Most are satisfied with this time estimate but when competing theories that better explain our observations are not given an honest review by the scientific community, everyone suffers from conclusions that are based upon potentially flawed assumptions.

I'm persuaded by some compelling evidence in astrophysics that provides a better explanation for several of the phenomena we observe in the universe and in nuclear physics. It so happens that billions of years is not necessary to well explain the things we observe.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29030
Jun 1, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you call yourself LowellGuy instead of Alfred E. Newman?
Why do you call yourself KJV instead of Profoundly Retarded Moron?
yessir

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29031
Jun 1, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>Then explain why it took so long for an all powerful Jewish Wizard to get things to where they are now.

If there is a "designer" guiding the molecules, why did it take BILLIONS of years?
IF it did take billions of years...why do you consider that negates the possibility of a designer?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29032
Jun 1, 2012
 
yessir wrote:
<quoted text>
Did it? Most are satisfied with this time estimate but when competing theories that better explain our observations are not given an honest review by the scientific community...
1: There are no "competing theories." By virtue of what a theory is, they are NOT able to be multiple and competing. They can be multiple, one being obsolete and one being accepted, or one being a primitive version of the currently accepted version, but competing? No.

2: Let's suppose you meant "hypothesis" instead of "theory." Great. Present one that hasn't been given a fair shake by the scientific community. Keep in mind that the way the scientific community considers a hypothesis is via scientific research that is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals based on that particular scientific field. It's not a matter of "I came up with this claim, but the mean ol' scientists won't listen to me!" It's a matter of doing the hard work to determine how things work following the scientific method. Dismissing the method results in your claims being dismissed.

3: What is the scientific method, how does it work, and why is it an effective means of determining how things work?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29033
Jun 1, 2012
 
yessir wrote:
<quoted text>
IF it did take billions of years...why do you consider that negates the possibility of a designer?
Well, not a designer, unless that designer is inept. A creator perhaps, one that set things in motion is not impossible, but to blame our poor design on a creator is rather insulting to something that's suppose to be smarter than us, is it not?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29034
Jun 1, 2012
 
yessir wrote:
<quoted text>
IF it did take billions of years...why do you consider that negates the possibility of a designer?
It has to do with the claims that others have made regarding this supposed creator for which there is no evidence, whose methods cannot be demonstrated, and whose nature is in dispute among those who claim it exists.
drink the hive

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29035
Jun 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Although Bucky Would Applaud Your Use Of Geodesic' 2 Measure The World...

&fe ature=related
Hoosier Hillbilly

Marengo, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29036
Jun 1, 2012
 
Did you know that an air molecules moves approx. the speed of a 22 shot?
JEWISH MARXIST LIES

Podgorica, Montenegro

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29039
Jun 1, 2012
 
Evolution is Jewish Marxist lie...Protocols of Elders of Zion qoute...We Jews will push Evolution,Feminism,Socialism and Liberalism on stupid goy.
yessir

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29041
Jun 1, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>First, the universe follows laws, but is far from ordered. Quantum physics only compounds that notion by stating we can't even predict half of what's going to happen when we get smaller, it does not support order at all.

You also fail at probability on such a massive scale. Any chance is still a chance and nothing is impossible, except when discussing history because that is just what it is, it's past and already happened, therefore it will not change just because you want it to.

You also confuse abiogensis with evolution, two different concepts, neither dependent on the other. Evolution happens, we see it in the fossil record, we see it in modern day, we see it in DNA, get over it, it happens. Without evolution, the variety of life, nor how it changes, makes no sense, that is why it's such a strong theory, it explains things. If you want to disprove it, find something that makes more sense and can help humans instead of hold us back like creationism.

Evolution has a 100% chance of happening, because it has happened, it is part of the historical record and therefore set in stone, literally.

Abiogenesis is up for debate, but not impossible, and no scientific mind would call it a theory at this time, it is a hypothesis and only got that far because they have figured out how the self replicating systems can and will arise in primordial Earth conditions. But as to how it became cells, well, no one knows yet.
Perhaps the term 'precision' connotes more clearly my meaning, but the precision and order of our universe is undeniable. I've already given several examples where this is evident. Another example is the use of strict and rigorous mathematics to explain even that which we cannot see.

But don't conflate 'precision and order' with 'simplicity'. Elegant yes, simple no.

I don't confuse abiogenesis with macroevolution, but intellectual honesty requires that we confront the logical derivations and consequences of our preferred assumptions. This inescapably requires consideration of origin.

Biology has happened. Many have grown comfortable (and I think intellectually lazy) with the notion that macroevolution adequately explains HOW it happened. It doesn't, and those who choose intellectual honesty over treasured assumptions are able to acknowledge this.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29042
Jun 1, 2012
 
yessir wrote:
<quoted text>
Did it? Most are satisfied with this time estimate but when competing theories that better explain our observations are not given an honest review by the scientific community, everyone suffers from conclusions that are based upon potentially flawed assumptions.
The problem with your "competing" theories is that invoke magic to answer problems in their claims.

For example:
We have observed radio active decay rates as stable. Even if they were unstable at a previous time, the amount of energy released would not change, just the time frame in which it was released.

So, ASSUMING that the unobserved claim from Creationists that radioactive decay is variable is true, they STILL need to explain how anything exists on an Earth which would still be molten from the amount of radiation given off in the time needed to vacate it.

To this they invoke a 2nd magic trick.

So, not only do we have variable decay rates (unobserved) we also have vanishing energy (unobserved & unobservable) to explain their alternative timeline.

MAYBE, MAYBE, MAYBE science would forgive ONE speculation in ONE part of ONE aspect of the timeline.

But when even a simple piece like RAD has at least two large speculations, you can't seriously expect to be treated as a real claim.
I'm persuaded by some compelling evidence in astrophysics that provides a better explanation for several of the phenomena we observe in the universe and in nuclear physics. It so happens that billions of years is not necessary to well explain the things we observe.
If you invoke magic.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29043
Jun 1, 2012
 
yessir wrote:
<quoted text>
IF it did take billions of years...why do you consider that negates the possibility of a designer?
Let me turn this around.

If you are going to make claims about a designer and you can not offer DIRECT evidence of a designer, then you have to rely on inferred evidence.

If you are relying on inferred evidence, then it is NECESSARY for the person making such claims to be able to clearly delineate between "evidence for" and "evidence against".

So, what timeline would be UNACCEPTABLE under the "Designer" model?

If the Universe turned out to be 400 billion years old, would that be evidence for or against a designer?

If the Universe turned out to be 400 years old, would that be evidence for or against a designer?

Is there ANY version which would NOT be considered evidence "for" a designer?
yessir

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29045
Jun 1, 2012
 
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, but the Anthropic Principle is not science. It is philosophy (at best) and rather poor quality philosophy at that. It is something that might inspire a freshman philosophy major, but is too shallow to hold anyone's interest for very long.
Condescension notwithstanding, I acknowledge that the logical conclusions of the Anthropic Principle have philosophical implications, but those implications don't negate the scientific observations. If you're more comfortable attributing these scientific realities to chance, rock on. Personally however, I'm not satisfied with an explanation of 'chance and coincidence' since these are probabilistically impossible whose acceptance requires blind faith.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29046
Jun 1, 2012
 
yessir wrote:
<quoted text>
Condescension notwithstanding, I acknowledge that the logical conclusions of the Anthropic Principle have philosophical implications, but those implications don't negate the scientific observations. If you're more comfortable attributing these scientific realities to chance, rock on. Personally however, I'm not satisfied with an explanation of 'chance and coincidence' since these are probabilistically impossible whose acceptance requires blind faith.
What scientific observations are those? The universe is suited to our life form? The actual scientfic obsevation is that humans are suited to the universe they evolved in.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29047
Jun 1, 2012
 
yessir wrote:
Biology has happened. Many have grown comfortable (and I think intellectually lazy) with the notion that macroevolution adequately explains HOW it happened. It doesn't, and those who choose intellectual honesty over treasured assumptions are able to acknowledge this.
Why do you equate "intellectual honesty" with making shit up? I think it's " intellectually lazy" of you to assume that things can't happen without your favorite form of Magic.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ferguson Police Are Being Relieved Of Their Dut... 3 min Aphelion 1,041
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min DITCH MITCH 150,071
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Lily Boca Raton FL 1,096,189
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 7 min USFemail XXXII 253,965
US Supreme Court puts Va. gay marriage on hold 8 min Bryan Fischer s H... 7
Hillary Clinton reiterates wish to advance rela... 8 min Bwana JIM 92
Black guest stuns CNN anchor: Racism is - not a... 10 min Pam 17
Teen's Shooting Highlights Racial Tension 2 hr Straw Grasping Te... 860

Search the US News Forum:
•••