Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 168574 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.

wolverine

Greeley, CO

#37441 Aug 11, 2012
Dr Rain wrote:
<quoted text>
Wolverine you have a poor understanding of how oil prices are set. Speculators are who set prices. It is not based on limits but on greed. I'd be happy to provide you with many primers but my guess is you arent interested in the facts.
What is sad is that we have all the necessary tech to move away from oil (e.g. electric) but because there is more to bilk of the masses through ignorance and stupidity we are where we are today.
So please stop with your tin hat consipracies and read the facts.
Yeah Right....Speculators Do Contribute To the Chaos.

But, There Is No Reasonable Replacement....Its All Smoke And Mirrors For A Price.

Solindra Ring A BEll ?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#37442 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There are hundreds of examples of medicinal plants that benefit humans and not the plants. For example, the foxglove plant produces digitalis which has saved the lives of thousands of heart patients.
Edible roots benefit animals and are a detriment to plant survival and reproduction. These modifications cannot be explained by an proposed mechanisms of evolution.
Sure they can be, you just don't want to hear them. Digitalis is a poison. If you consume Foxglove carelessly it will kill you. The poison protects the plants.

And what a laugh. It is obvious that you have never farmed or gardened much. You better think again about your statement that edible roots are detrimental to a plants survival. Quite a few plants can reproduce in two ways, one is by flowering, the other is via their edible roots, tubers, and bulbs. That list includes potatoes, Dahlias, tulips, onions, garlic, the list goes on and on.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#37443 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There are hundreds of examples of medicinal plants that benefit humans and not the plants. For example, the foxglove plant produces digitalis which has saved the lives of thousands of heart patients.
Edible roots benefit animals and are a detriment to plant survival and reproduction. These modifications cannot be explained by an proposed mechanisms of evolution.
Foxglove plant is poisonous , that carries a benefit that most animals will not eat it.

Edible roots try to hide in the ground from you having no defense against you , but you ate Mr. Potato head anyway.

Your argument is weak , very very weak.

Next you will tell us spinach grows in the wild so we can eat it.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#37444 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
Seeds and embryos are not "simple". They contain the entire genetic blueprint for a living thing.
I think you have Jonathan Sarfati to thank for this argument.
It seems that he was the one who started all this noise about an organism requiring the necessary "information."

In one of his books, he argued that dog breeders have been working for centuries and have come up with nothing but more dogs.
So now we know that the first dogs had the information--or "genetic blueprint" or whatever you want to call it--for Dalmations and cocker spaniels, but maybe not for lizards and turtles and eucalyptus trees.

But he still doesn't give a satisfactory definition of "information."
I realize that you can cross a Dalmation with a cocker spaniel and get fertile offspring.
But that doesn't answer my question.
A species can evolve to the point where a member of the parent species cannot mate with a member of the daughter species.
We have seen proof of this in evolution taking place in our own time.

So I ask you: Without knowing the history of the canine species, how could you look at a dog's DNA and tell exactly how it could be bred or evolved and how it can't be bred or evolved?

This is off the subject, but theists don't seem to realize the importance of defining independent and dependent variables.
In every well-written lab report, the author is very careful to define both variables in order to preclude any misunderstanding.

But theists don't seem to be so careful.
At every revival, they rejoice over every person who comes to the altar to get saved.
If that person later backslides, they have to recant by saying that the person wasn't truly saved after all.
When a couple gets married, everyone cheers, throws rice, and declares that "this marriage was made in Heaven."
Then they have to recant if the couple gets divorced.

So now I am bewildered about what constitutes salvation, celestial matchmaking, and genetic information.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#37445 Aug 11, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You have presented nothing but rhetoric. Evolution is a theory and a fact , get over it . There is nothing you can produce that will prove it is incorrect , it has 150 years of verification.
Every attempt to falsify it by scientists who test the theory every day , have all failed. The evidence in favor of it's being correct is insurmountable now. It is simply a truth you cannot deny.
Not so. Not even the scientific community makes any of the claims you just did. There are in fact, still insurmountable problems with the theory. The model for mutations resulting in viable species still remains nonexistent. There is no evidence whatsoever that mutations result in anything but a dead genetic line.

Nor does it explain the origin of life, which still remains firmly out of its grasp as a theory.

The fossil records do not confirm it, after 150 years of looking very hard for a transitional species, none have been found.

And it cannot be reproduced in a lab. In fact, as we learn more about biology, we learn how truly impossible evolution could be as a viable theory.

Like many bad theories in the past from the scientific community, it will eventually fall out of favor and be replaced by something else. You can already see it happening as people like Richard Dawkins play with the idea of extraterrestrial origins of life.

So quit being a conformist. No one says you have to believe God did it. But theories come and go as we learn more and more about the universe. Darwinism is dead, get over it, and let real science make some real progress.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#37446 Aug 11, 2012
I wrote:
I have two specific questions:
1. When has "any part of the structure of any one species ... been formed for the exclusive good of another species"?
2. Assuming that such an event has taken place, how does that disprove evolution?
We didn't say that would disprove evolution, Darwin said that would disprove evolution.

HTS wrote:
There are hundreds of examples of medicinal plants that benefit humans and not the plants. For example, the foxglove plant produces digitalis which has saved the lives of thousands of heart patients.
Edible roots benefit animals and are a detriment to plant survival and reproduction. These modifications cannot be explained by an proposed mechanisms of evolution.

HTS, thank you for addressing my first question.
Will you please address my second question?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#37447 Aug 11, 2012
It is becoming more and more apparent that HTS is a YEC and not too bright of a YEC at that. Or else he may of course be a poe. Being a poe has always seemed to be counterproductive to me. But there are all types in this world of ours.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#37448 Aug 11, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so. Not even the scientific community makes any of the claims you just did. There are in fact, still insurmountable problems with the theory. The model for mutations resulting in viable species still remains nonexistent. There is no evidence whatsoever that mutations result in anything but a dead genetic line.
Nor does it explain the origin of life, which still remains firmly out of its grasp as a theory.
The fossil records do not confirm it, after 150 years of looking very hard for a transitional species, none have been found.
And it cannot be reproduced in a lab. In fact, as we learn more about biology, we learn how truly impossible evolution could be as a viable theory.
Like many bad theories in the past from the scientific community, it will eventually fall out of favor and be replaced by something else. You can already see it happening as people like Richard Dawkins play with the idea of extraterrestrial origins of life.
So quit being a conformist. No one says you have to believe God did it. But theories come and go as we learn more and more about the universe. Darwinism is dead, get over it, and let real science make some real progress.
Why do creationists spew such obvious lies? There is plenty of evidence for positive mutations. They have even observed them in the laboratory. The evolution of E. coli to digest citrate. Like any good science experiment they were able to duplicate the results. And I see this denier must be using 150 year old paleontology texts since the number of transitional fossils are so great now that we realize all fossils show transition.

Of course the idiot probably wants a fossil that would prove evolution wrong, like Cameron's Crocoduck. What a tard.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#37449 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
Evolutionists assumed that DNA defined everything in man... They did not consider the possibility that man's behavior and intelligence might be defined by more than DNA.
So Evolutionists at one time believed human behavior was determined solely by DNA?
I've never heard that before.
Could you tell me where I could find out more about this?

Did all Evolutionists believe this, or just some Evolutionists?

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#37450 Aug 11, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so. Not even the scientific community makes any of the claims you just did. There are in fact, still insurmountable problems with the theory. The model for mutations resulting in viable species still remains nonexistent. There is no evidence whatsoever that mutations result in anything but a dead genetic line.
Nor does it explain the origin of life, which still remains firmly out of its grasp as a theory.
The fossil records do not confirm it, after 150 years of looking very hard for a transitional species, none have been found.
And it cannot be reproduced in a lab. In fact, as we learn more about biology, we learn how truly impossible evolution could be as a viable theory.
Like many bad theories in the past from the scientific community, it will eventually fall out of favor and be replaced by something else. You can already see it happening as people like Richard Dawkins play with the idea of extraterrestrial origins of life.
So quit being a conformist. No one says you have to believe God did it. But theories come and go as we learn more and more about the universe. Darwinism is dead, get over it, and let real science make some real progress.


Actually most of everything you have written here is pure bunk, there are no problems with the theory, rather problems with people like you who do not understand it. ALSO.....

Your denial is duly noted, but irrelevant to the fact that evolution is still a theory and a fact, is the truth and something you will have to come to grips with.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#37451 Aug 11, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do creationists spew such obvious lies? There is plenty of evidence for positive mutations. They have even observed them in the laboratory. The evolution of E. coli to digest citrate. Like any good science experiment they were able to duplicate the results. And I see this denier must be using 150 year old paleontology texts since the number of transitional fossils are so great now that we realize all fossils show transition.
Of course the idiot probably wants a fossil that would prove evolution wrong, like Cameron's Crocoduck. What a tard.
Firstly, I never stated I am a Creationist. I am not. I have no idea how all this got started. And neither does the scientific community.

You just named a few positive mutations, that is not enough by a long shot. Positive mutations do not occur mathematically at a rate to create a viable model.

And doing it is in lab is more evidence of design than evolution, since scientists are there making it happen in a controlled environment. Until you can go back in time and get some real, hard evidence, all you have is an interpretation of the data.

No, there are suspected transitional fossils, but that is not proven at all. The very few examples that exist, again, is not strong evidence when so much is still lacking.

I don't have to prove evolution wrong. It has never been proven correct. Science demands more evidence, and since this has become a cultural, political, and religion issue, science has been brushed aside for expedience.

Sorry friend, but you are doing science no favors at all. We need more knowledge, not people clamoring with their fists.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#37452 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There are hundreds of examples of medicinal plants that benefit humans and not the plants. For example, the foxglove plant produces digitalis which has saved the lives of thousands of heart patients.
Edible roots benefit animals and are a detriment to plant survival and reproduction. These modifications cannot be explained by an proposed mechanisms of evolution.
Dont be ridiculous.

Any plant, OR ANIMAL will eventually be "consumed". Our bodies will return to the earth, or benefit the bodies of other plants or animals as a result of our death.

It is the cycle of life.

Have you really not thought this through?

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#37453 Aug 11, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually most of everything you have written here is pure bunk, there are no problems with the theory, rather problems with people like you who do not understand it. ALSO.....
Your denial is duly noted, but irrelevant to the fact that evolution is still a theory and a fact, is the truth and something you will have to come to grips with.
It's actually quite the opposite, and always has been.

But you are welcome to do what no scientists had yet done ... show us conclusive evidence.:)

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#37454 Aug 11, 2012
What is sad is that people are so stuck on this issue, that science is the real victim here. It has suffered major setbacks because of this dispute.

Neither Creationists or Evolutionists have it right. What a travesty for humankind.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#37455 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it that atheists are incapable of engaging in a scientific debate without constantly bringing up their contempt for God?
You're just not getting it. I do not show contempt for God. I show contempt for people stupid enough to believe Methuselah lived nine hundred and sixt-nine years and broadcasting that supidity to all quadrants.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#37456 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical ranting of an atheist who has nothing intelligent to say. I've presented mountains of evidence against evolution, and you simply say, "no, that's not true" without providing any logical refutation, All you can do is paste links from atheist websites.
Is it safe to assume anyone who does not believe the same pile of cráp you believe is an atheist?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#37458 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not presenting ID as a scientific theory. I'm debunking evolution.
I'm confused, then.
On page 1810, you wrote, "Intelligent design is the only scientifically proven force in the universe capable of creating complexity from randomness."
That was 11 hours ago.

On page 1802, you wrote, "Evolution states that no intelligent design exists."

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#37459 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
I'm telling you that arguments of imperfections of nature are founded on a philosophical rejection of God.
I can't speak for Dude, but I thought you were challenging us to refute Intelligent Design.
The only way I know to refute Intelligent Design is through "arguments of imperfections of nature."
So I'm afraid you got us!

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#37460 Aug 11, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's actually quite the opposite, and always has been.
But you are welcome to do what no scientists had yet done ... show us conclusive evidence.:)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#37461 Aug 11, 2012
Yankee Yahoo, fossils are no longer needed to "prove" evolution. And please don't lie about a creationist when your posts are full of cretinist nonsense claim. Here is a clue for you so that you don't give yourself away next time. Science does not have to and in fact cannot "prove" anything. Proofs are for math. Science develops theories and tests them. They start with hypotheses and build up from their. When a new idea is presented a huge number of scientists will try to shoot it down. If they fail others join in. If the idea is "correct" that is if it does not get disproved, and you can disprove a theory, it is eventually accepted. Evolution has been tested for over 150 years and it has not failed a test. Creationism has, and so has ID. You will notice there is no such thing as a theory of ID. Too often when an IDiot come up with something that is "irreducibly complex" it has usually been explained by the timethey get their idea out there. IDiots trail the scientific curve of discovery, they are never surfing the forefront.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Paul Porter1 141,796
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr dirtclod 19,743
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 4 hr polymath257 6,169
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 8 hr Chimney1 190
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Mon Chimney1 560
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Jun 28 Chimney1 178,667
Poll Should Topix create an Philosophy forum? (Oct '09) Jun 26 NoahLovesU 6
More from around the web