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: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24751 May 5, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
Gregory W.K.(1927): Hesperopithecus apparently not an ape nor a man. Science, 66:579-81.(identified the Nebraska Man tooth as belonging to a peccary)
Gould S.J.(1991): An essay on a pig roast. In Bully for brontosaurus.(pp. 432-47). New York: W.W.Norton.
Osborn H.F.(1922): Hesperopithecus, the anthropoid primate of western Nebraska. Nature, 110:281-3.
Smith G.E.(1922): Hesperopithecus: the ape-man of the western world. Illustrated London News, 160:942-4.
Smith G.E.(1927): The evolution of man. Ed. 2. London: Oxford University Press.
Taylor I.(1995): Nebraska man goes to court. Science, Scripture and Salvation (ICR radio show), Jul 8:
Wolf J. and Mellett J.S.(1985): The role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate. Creation/Evolution, Issue 16:31-43.(the best reference on the Nebraska Man episode)
And this list of citations is supposed to represent *what*, exactly?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#24752 May 5, 2012
yessir wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the link, Prof. Good stuff that will serve those who have learned to think critically and objectively.
Apart from lying in his first couple of sentences, "Prof X", the big fake jessie-wuss wuss who runs away each time he spams his BS and is challenged to back up his claims, left linkys to an evangelical fundamentalist Christian website that thinks the Earth is young.

In short, they're promoting anti-reality.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#24753 May 5, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA EVIDENCE FAILED to prove O.J. guilty. It also failed to prove evolution true. If evolution were true, one might expect the oldest, least developed forms of life to have the fewest chromosomes. It isn't too surprising that a worm has 2 chromosomes, and a mosquito has 6. Man has 46 chromosomes, so he is almost as highly developed as a potato, which has 48. Maybe some day man will evolve into a goldfish (94) or even a shrimp (254). Goldfish and shrimp are similar to the fossils found at the bottom of the geologic column, which evolutionists claim are the most primitive forms of life. The DNA evidence looks bad for evolution. To learn more incriminating evidence, write for one free copy of our newsletter. Science Against Evolution, P.O. BOX 923, Ridgecrest, CA 93556.
Not only did you NOT address his points, DNA is what cemented evolution firmly in science, and your copy-paste BS did not have citation.

Now, can you be honest for once (virtually impossible for creationists) and just say that you have no clue what we're talking about, nor what the creationist websites are talking about either, and that you just reject evolution cuz you think the Bible is true cuz the Bible sez so?

It would save you and everybody else a lot of time.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#24754 May 5, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
EVERYONE KNOWS LIFE HAPPENS. Pinocchio and Frosty are documented cases. Although all experiments have failed to produce 12 of the 20 necessary amino acids from the postulated primordial soup, everyone who has been educated in an American public school knows that success in 8 cases proves that all 20 can form naturally by chance. Given a tide pool with all 20 amino acids, experiments have produced just 2 of the 4 necessary proteins necessary for life [please note correction by following this link.]. That's enough to claim success. Anyone with half a brain can see how all these chemicals can form a nucleus, cytoplasm, and cell membrane by chance. All that remains is to inject life into the cell. This is left as an exercise for the reader.(Hint: You need a dark and stormy night, a lightening rod, well-grounded slab, a deformed assistant, and a big switch.) This is the rock-solid foundation upon which the theory of evolution rests.
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

Now repeat it, over and over.

Cuz I piggin have to.

Level 4

Since: Mar 09

Hidden

#24755 May 5, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
Here's one for you gravity comment
THE MOON FALLS UP! The Apollo 11 astronauts left a laser reflector on the Moon which has allowed scientists on the ground to measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon very accurately. They discovered that the Moon gets 4 cm farther away from the Earth every year.
I guess planes fall up too.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#24756 May 5, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
I can paste link and stuff like this to back me up too.
Guess you're wrong.
Except your links did NOT address his points.

This is how the debate should go:

You made claims, he provided links which ADDRESSED those claims.

In turn, instead of just posting links which did NOT address his links, they should have addressed the points they discussed.

At which point after both of you reading the links for and against each other's claims, you should re-engage and discuss the points and argue your respective positions rationally.

Otherwise the thread just turns into a messy pointless spam-fest for both sides.

Level 4

Since: Mar 09

Hidden

#24757 May 5, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Not my point. Can something evolve without introducing additional information?
Define information in whatever contxt you are using it here.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#24758 May 5, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
If you really want to know look it up
I should not have to spoon feed you just to have spit up.
No, if you make a claim, you should be prepared to back it up.

We could always say that we don't have to spoon-feed you the evidence for evolution either, it's all available to you. It's just that you are simply not interested.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#24759 May 5, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutionists don't maintain that all species are always evolving.
A population evolves only when the environment puts a strain on that population.
Incorrect. Every human on Earth is born with 125 to 175 mutations, regardless of the environment. These mutations accumulate with each successive generation. They may or may not be acted upon by the environment further down the line.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#24760 May 5, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
So, this is good. Circumstantial evidence says there was no Noah's flood
ALL evidence says there was no flood.

Unless one wants to claim it was a local event maybe.(shrug)

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#24761 May 5, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it really happened.
In that case I would like a list of each and every single one of their names and addresses, complete with **contemporary** historical records of their existence, as well as contemporary evidence that whatever event they allegedly witnessed had actually in fact occurred, all without using the Bible itself as a source.
You'd think that all with all this truly amazing stuff happening, someone would have writtten it down right awway and not waited for the friend of a friend who heard it from his babysitters brother write it down, huh? I mean this would have been world shaking stuff if it were ture, so someone would have thought to document it. unless, of course, it was made up and/or exaggerated over multiple retellings and multiple years.
previous religions have had their saviour resurected, raise the dead, born of virgin birth perform miracles..all witnessed also, supposedly. why don't you believe in those gods?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#24762 May 5, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong just a theory.
I'm happy with that. Theory is as high as it gets in science. They NEVER get "proven" to become "laws" (a popular common misconception).

Here's some more:

The theory of gravity.

The germ theory of disease.

Quantum theory.

The theory of relativity.

Plate tectonics.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#24763 May 5, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy way out. Put the blinders on. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
Yes, it WAS an easy way out. For you.

You didn't address his points.

Again.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#24764 May 5, 2012
MAAT wrote:
The Schwarzschild radius gives the radius at which the Schwarzschild metric becomes singular, and is therefore the "size" of a black hole. It can naively (although incorrectly) be derived by letting the escape velocity of a black hole equal to the speed of light.
Compress the earth to 0,9 centimers etc.
It's an estimation.
There are different approaches.
What is the density of a black hole?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#24765 May 5, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
A PIG'S TOOTH by any other name is Nebraska man. Evolutionists found a single tooth in Nebraska that seemed to be half way between a human tooth and an ape tooth. They claimed they had found conclusive proof of the missing link between ape and man. The tooth was later positively identified as a pig's tooth, but by this time textbooks were filled with artists' conceptions of Nebraska man, showing him to be a hairy ape-man with poor posture. All that was missing was the football.
Except it wasn't scientists who made the claim, it was some guy who brought it to the popular press. Scientists then examined the claims and determined them to be incorrect. The very same scientists you disagree with.

In fact the same can be said of every single (genuine) fraud or mistake you care to bring up. You guys concentrate on those even though they don't help your position, in the vain hope that linking these events to evolution by proxy is enough to prove evolution wrong.

While you waste time doing that, you utterly ignore the actual evidence that demonstrates evolution.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#24766 May 5, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe this movement in evolution took place without the addition of new information in DNA?
The DNA **IS** the information. But carry on demonstrating that you have no clue what you're talking about.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#24767 May 5, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Not my point. Can something evolve without introducing additional information?
DNA changes by mutation. The mutations can add to or subtract from the genome, or simply change it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#24768 May 5, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
evolution has changed what the modern science movement was originally intented for. Firstly, it is considered both theory and fact which have different meanings. This is a bit misleading because facts are data, hypothesis and theory are structured explanations which interpret the data. Secondly, during the 90's when a leading science journal proclaimed evolution to be an undisputable fact (even gravity is now questioned because of ideas like dark matter and dark energy), as a result, there has been a watering down of the scientific method to the point where man-made stories are considered just as important as observational facts.
The research for evolution has become a major money-making machine around the world including the United States beginning in the 20th century. The funding for this research has topped all time levels which includes many billions of dollars and yet its process lacks a lot of observational data with plausible explanations within its own fundamentals.
Yup, just a big old darn conspiracy.

But just imagine the money that could be made if someone were to disprove it...

(sheesh)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#24769 May 5, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
Until now, atheists had a handy way of denying God: "It all happened through evolution!" But now, evolution is heading downhill. Clinging to their ideology like religionists, the atheistic crowd try to find some way to make the evidence fit their ideas.
Evolution is not atheism. Which is why even Christians accept it. "Denying God" is not necessary for acceptance of evolution. Acceptance of your particular brand of creationism in actual fact requires denying God the ability to use evolution.

Boy, you ARE powerful.
Langoliers wrote:
Mutations! That's right, mutations! Scientists knew that random mistakes occasionally changed the DNA in the genome. They called these mistakes mutations. Perhaps, the atheists theorized, lucky mutations were the cause of genetic change and macroevolution! Any bad mutations would be filtered out by natural selection, and the lucky mutations they needed would be passed on to the next generation to be built upon by more mutations.
Of course, all this is speculation.
Not speculation, observed.

Also "mistakes" and "luck" are subjective terms.
Langoliers wrote:
We haven't ever seen a mutation that not only made its owner more likely to survive
Cecal valves in Podarcus sicula of Pod Mrcaru.
Langoliers wrote:
but also added to the genome
There's a whole study on SETMAR that proves you wrong. Mutations add to the genome all the time, and this is not a revelation to biologists.
Langoliers wrote:
and would eventually lead to a more advanced species.
Since evolution is not goal-directed, it is not constantly heading towards "more advanced" species. That's another common creationist misconception because they haven't bothered to learn what the theory of evolution is.
Langoliers wrote:
This is the current theory held by the majority of scientists worldwide.
The current theory of biology is the modern evolutionary synthesis, and so far no challenges have been brought forward in the form of an alternate scientific theory that does a better job of explaining the evidence.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#24770 May 5, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i don't know, can it? do you know?
can it evolve by dumping uneeded DNA?
Answers:

Yes.

No.

Yes.

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Dogen 18,668
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 1 hr Dogen 1,325
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 7 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,668
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 9 hr hpcaban 178,585
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Thu Dogen 141,273
Guadeloupe Woman Found (1812 (Mar '10) Thu MikeF 73
Evolution Debunked (Jan '08) Apr 21 rationalreasoner 278
More from around the web