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 (Page 1,773)

Showing posts 35,441 - 35,460 of105,891
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36787
Aug 7, 2012
 
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>And here we have the reason for all the lying bullsh!t by the followers of Jesus:

"If evolution is true, then our fundamentalist religion HAS to be false, because we rely on a literal interpretation of Genesis and that cannot stand up to the findings of science. And we are much more comfortable defending the comforting lies of our pastors than to bravely face REALITY."
What? Did you just figure this out?
That the two can't both be correct.

Molasses is slow in January because it's cold. What's your excuse?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36788
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
you must not understand the difference in accuracy in a small area and a scienctific theory that must work in the whole universe.
Who says that a scientific theory must work in the whole universe? Are you saying that a theory is invalid simply on the basis that it may have some limitations?
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36789
Aug 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>When?
Not quite up to date in science are you?

From Nova:

"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.

RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...

LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...

LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...

RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.

So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?

Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36790
Aug 7, 2012
 
Where in any of that did you say that Mashia said it?
KJV wrote:
Where did I say he didn't?
If you post something, and the words you post are clearly the original words of Gould (except for your omitting a crucial sentence), on what rational basis could we possibly conclude that they were anyone else's words? Someone that you didn't name and that we've never heard of?
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36791
Aug 7, 2012
 
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>Translation from Creationese: "I don't have a clue what evolution is, so i will just keep making up and mis-applying various defintiions so I can keep claiming victory"

You can lead a Creationist to knowledge, but you cannot make them think! Case in point -- KJV
By your definition a sun burn would be evolution. "the skin changed colors to make him look more like the alpha male"
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36792
Aug 7, 2012
 
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>Science does not try to disprove God. As for God creating a 'mature' universe, the evidence does not bear that out. Now if you claim that God can make it seem like the universe is old when it is actually young, I guess you can make that claim, but then why bother with evidence at all?
I could guess as to why but that's not what you want is it?

No I can't read Gods mind so I can't tell you why he did something if he didn't tell us.
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36793
Aug 7, 2012
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>why is that a problem at all? It just means we haven't figured it out yet.

When Newton started the theory of gravity, it worked for what we knew, then it was added to as we knew more...lather rinse repeat.
Exactly!

So why is it being taught in schools as a scientific theory?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36794
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>By your definition a sun burn would be evolution. "the skin changed colors to make him look more like the alpha male"
Yes it is. There is different genetics going on between people in the tropics and northern latitudes. Also look at eye evolution from these separate groups.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36795
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly!

So why is it being taught in schools as a scientific theory?
Would you prefer magic?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36796
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>I could guess as to why but that's not what you want is it?

No I can't read Gods mind so I can't tell you why he did something if he didn't tell us.
Perhaps he was dreaming when he spoke about four legged grasshoppers.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36797
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite up to date in science are you?
From Nova:
"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.
RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...
LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...
RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.
So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?
Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.
So, let me get this straight. You are quote-mining a popular show about science that tries to explain some aspects of science in layman's terms which basically says "We do not yet know everything" and offers no actual refutation -- let me repeat that -- no actual refutation of either Einstein's Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics and you seem to think that there is a problem of some sorts.

What you have is your typical mis-representation of science. So instead of calling you foolish names, let me simply ask do you have an actual scientific refutation of the ToR? Not a popular science TV show, not a news magazine, but something that ACTUALLY refutes ToR with science and not opinion?

If you had an honest bone in your body you COULD make the case that what you are reading here is a difference of opinion and eventually the real scientists will come up with an answer that explains rather than your pronouncement of doom for one or the other. More than likely the eventual answer will show an integration with the two theories rather than wholesale replacement of one over the other, sorta like Newton and Einstein.

Again, if you understood a little history you would see a parallel between The Theory of Evolution and the re-discovery of Mendel's Genetics. For a time they were seen as competing theories, in fact many creationists of the day declared that it was the death knell for Darwin ... an oft repeated comment that never seems to have any actual support. Of course when you let the scientists work and they find the integration of the ideas and Genetics became the strongest evidence supporting the theory of evolution.

Try reading for context and using better sources before you make silly pronouncements. The ToR is still used and quite useful. Funny, in Earth's Gravity well, even Newton's work still applies. One day QM might replace aspects of the ToR, but that still remains to be seen. You are in a rush to judge for some foolish reason, aren't you?
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36798
Aug 7, 2012
 
Rogue Angel wrote:
<quoted text>Not true. Look at nearly any group of a species that has been isolated from the non isolated group. One of the best examples are African cichlids which have isolated and non isolated groups. All came from an earlier ancestor.
The modern definition of species (this new term was introduced to help explain evolution) before the term was "kind"
And there is no evidence of one kind ever evolving into another kind.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Spe...

"This basic taxonomic unit is remarkably stable. Species tend to remain the same throughout their geological history. As noted by eminent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, the macroevolutionary patterns of species are typically ones of morphological stability during their existence, a phenomena known as "stasis." In presenting the theory of punctuated equilibria, Niles Eldridge and Gould noted: "Most species, during their geological history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction." Once a species appears, the fossil record does not change much during its existence, which may be several million years. This view accords well with the view of creationism, which references a clear-cut boundary between species, as well as stability during their existence."

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36799
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite up to date in science are you?
From Nova:
"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.
RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...
LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...
RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.
So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?
Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.
Relativity has been confirmed over and over, the fact that gravity has not been quantized doesn't mean relativity is wrong. But there are new hypothesis being born from the knowledge that the Higgs field does exist. There are a great many things that can be explained by this knowledge. The the thing is it unites and agrees with quantum gravity and relativity, it just has to be tested now. We are on the cusp of finally understanding gravity.

http://www.higgs-boson.org/

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36800
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
By your definition a sun burn would be evolution. "the skin changed colors to make him look more like the alpha male"
No, it's not and that would be clear if you understood even a 5th grade level about evolution. But you obviously do not.

No, since sunburn isn't an allele change, it's not evolution. However, since you brought up the subject, you might read up on natural selection and how it relates to people who can and do tan. Tanning is much more than cosmetic and it's interesting to see the tanning rates of those of Northern European extraction change over time and why -- that is an allele change, not just sun exposure. There is a more recent element of Sexual Selection involving those who tan more darkly than others. Some interesting research. You might do your homework before making silly statements.

Care to shoot another blank?

My comment still is pretty clear. You are complaining about evolution and you know little about it. A sunburn as an example of evolution ... LOL.
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36801
Aug 7, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>Who says that a scientific theory must work in the whole universe? Are you saying that a theory is invalid simply on the basis that it may have some limitations?
Science!

No, it is not a scientific theory if it fails a test. I don't say this science does.

It's no longer a theory it's just an equation. one that works well with large items but fails with tiny items.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36802
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite up to date in science are you?
I'm afraid it is you who is not up to date.

Einstein was confirmed twice this year TWICE.
First with SR special relativity and the speed of light constant , which they at first thought there was a problem, but it was a human error that cost a scientist his job.
So in the end SR was confirmed and the speed of light a physical constant.

Second General relativity was confirmed by measuring the gravity predictions in a orbital body , the predictions were confirmed that GR is correct.

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

So before you start pointing the finger , you better know what you're pointing at and what you're talking about. Because you are wrong about yet another thing.
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36803
Aug 7, 2012
 
Rogue Angel wrote:
<quoted text>Yes it is. There is different genetics going on between people in the tropics and northern latitudes. Also look at eye evolution from these separate groups.
Funny how their DNA is the same?

Oh yea you're talking about just turning on or off genes not creating a new "kind".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36804
Aug 7, 2012
 
Who says that a scientific theory must work in the whole universe? Are you saying that a theory is invalid simply on the basis that it may have some limitations?
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Science!
No, it is not a scientific theory if it fails a test.
What test did it fail?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36805
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>The modern definition of species (this new term was introduced to help explain evolution) before the term was "kind"
And there is no evidence of one kind ever evolving into another kind.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Spe...

"This basic taxonomic unit is remarkably stable. Species tend to remain the same throughout their geological history. As noted by eminent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, the macroevolutionary patterns of species are typically ones of morphological stability during their existence, a phenomena known as "stasis." In presenting the theory of punctuated equilibria, Niles Eldridge and Gould noted: "Most species, during their geological history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction." Once a species appears, the fossil record does not change much during its existence, which may be several million years. This view accords well with the view of creationism, which references a clear-cut boundary between species, as well as stability during their existence."
Lungfish...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36806
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>The modern definition of species (this new term was introduced to help explain evolution) before the term was "kind"
And there is no evidence of one kind ever evolving into another kind.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Spe...

"This basic taxonomic unit is remarkably stable. Species tend to remain the same throughout their geological history. As noted by eminent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, the macroevolutionary patterns of species are typically ones of morphological stability during their existence, a phenomena known as "stasis." In presenting the theory of punctuated equilibria, Niles Eldridge and Gould noted: "Most species, during their geological history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction." Once a species appears, the fossil record does not change much during its existence, which may be several million years. This view accords well with the view of creationism, which references a clear-cut boundary between species, as well as stability during their existence."
Indohyus

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 35,441 - 35,460 of105,891
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••