Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 168478 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

#40974 Aug 24, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
You know marriage is not the cause of children, you do realize that?
Many homosexuals have children, and many more will. Many children of heterosexual couples may become homosexual just like the children of homosexuals may well be heterosexual. You know this is basic birds and bees stuff, the average 10 year old probably knows more than you.
I Disagree...Homosexuals Pretend To Be Parents....There Is Not A Connection With The Child As In The Case OF A Biological Parent.

As We Know, Indoctrination Starts At An Alarming Young Age.
What Some " The Minority " Deems As Acceptable, Is Forced Upon The Moral Values Of The Majority.

Thus, By Shear Acceptance Of This Immoral Behavior, The Trend For The Young To Experiment With Alternative Lifestyles Is on The Rise.
First It Was Oral Sex To Prevent The Chances Of Conception, Then It Was Bi-Sexual, To Experience Both Sides, Now Its Either Or.

While My Personal Opinion Is, I Dont Care, As Long As Its Not Offending Me, Or Displayed In Public.....The Slope Is Slippery.

We Attacked Mormonism Because Of The Multiple Wives....Why ?
Beastiality Is Considered Disgusting And Taboo....Why ?
Incest Was A Way Of life And Now Considered Immoral....Why ?

There Are " Side Effects " Of Each Of These Behaviors.....

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#40975 Aug 24, 2012
Malakal wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.uprightape.net/New_Evolution_ReWri...
"Hi, I’m Dr. Aaron Filler. I’m a spinal neurosurgeon at Cedars Sinai in LA and I’m also a Harvard trained evolutionary biologist."
No, that is not the way it works. You have to find other sources than what he claims to back him up. In this case he was telling the truth about his training. I have not found anything but the stories from the popular press that backs up his claims.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#40976 Aug 24, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
I Disagree...Homosexuals Pretend To Be Parents....There Is Not A Connection With The Child As In The Case OF A Biological Parent.
As We Know, Indoctrination Starts At An Alarming Young Age.
What Some " The Minority " Deems As Acceptable, Is Forced Upon The Moral Values Of The Majority.
Thus, By Shear Acceptance Of This Immoral Behavior, The Trend For The Young To Experiment With Alternative Lifestyles Is on The Rise.
First It Was Oral Sex To Prevent The Chances Of Conception, Then It Was Bi-Sexual, To Experience Both Sides, Now Its Either Or.
While My Personal Opinion Is, I Dont Care, As Long As Its Not Offending Me, Or Displayed In Public.....The Slope Is Slippery.
We Attacked Mormonism Because Of The Multiple Wives....Why ?
Beastiality Is Considered Disgusting And Taboo....Why ?
Incest Was A Way Of life And Now Considered Immoral....Why ?
There Are " Side Effects " Of Each Of These Behaviors.....
I hear Iran would fit your kind of hate and bigotry like a glove....

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#40977 Aug 24, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
I Disagree...Homosexuals Pretend To Be Parents....There Is Not A Connection With The Child As In The Case OF A Biological Parent.
As We Know, Indoctrination Starts At An Alarming Young Age.
What Some " The Minority " Deems As Acceptable, Is Forced Upon The Moral Values Of The Majority.
Thus, By Shear Acceptance Of This Immoral Behavior, The Trend For The Young To Experiment With Alternative Lifestyles Is on The Rise.
First It Was Oral Sex To Prevent The Chances Of Conception, Then It Was Bi-Sexual, To Experience Both Sides, Now Its Either Or.
While My Personal Opinion Is, I Dont Care, As Long As Its Not Offending Me, Or Displayed In Public.....The Slope Is Slippery.
We Attacked Mormonism Because Of The Multiple Wives....Why ?
Beastiality Is Considered Disgusting And Taboo....Why ?
Incest Was A Way Of life And Now Considered Immoral....Why ?
There Are " Side Effects " Of Each Of These Behaviors.....
Yet your homophobic fears have been shown to be false.

According to the American Psychological Association:

"In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parentin...

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#40978 Aug 24, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I don't know the mathematical definition of complexity. Do you? Are you suggesting that complexity doesn't exist?
So, in other words, the idea of complexity is mostly one of opinion. What appears complex to you may not appear complex to another. You might get away with a claim of complexity, but you then have to prove that nature cannot produce complexity -- which is nonsense.

Now, if by some miracle (pun intended) you prove both complexity AND that nature cannot form anything complex, you have to come up with another explanation beside your religious ones -- because in order for them to work, you have to work on proving the existance of God.

Now, if by some incredible fluke you manage all that, YOU still have to prove that God had anything to do with the formation of life.

You better get started, you have a lot of work ahead of you.
2. I don't think it's possible to provide an accurate analogy as to how natural selection could assist a monkey in typing Shakespeare. This is because a book is language, and language cannot be altered one keystroke at a time without an end goal. The question remains... Do you agree that DNA has language type functionality? The Darwinian paradigm of nucleotides being inherited one or two at a time is absurd, because you cannot change the meaning of a genetic code one or two nucleotides at a time any more than a book can be written by contemplating each keystroke. Perhaps the demand for a Shakespearean play is unfair, given the fact that many endpoints are possible. How about imagining that a monkey could type ANYTHING MEANINGFUL?
Analogies are always inaccurate, which is why they are analogies. They illustrate concepts, they are not designed to be replacements. Your claim that evolution is the equivalent to the monkey typing Shakespeare is an incredibly poor analogy for many reasons, I highlighted one of them.

Biologists have shown over and over again that evolution is not a random process. One of the mechanisms that make it a non-random process is Natural Selection. Without at least that, what you have is an analogy of randomness -- and since evolution is not a random process, your analogy doesn't even come close. If you can come up with a better analogy for natural selection, be my guest. But repeating a common Creationist canard simply means you are just a creationist and apparently a poorly educated one at that.

You are so close, yet you cannot even see it. Think about it, does the monkey know if it produced anything meaningful?

Does a gene know if the transcription error is something that will be naturally selected for?

Come on, put '2' and '2' together and come up with '4' for a change.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#40979 Aug 24, 2012
Malakal wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.uprightape.net/New_Evolution_ReWri...
"Did Apes Evolve from Humans? Did Darwin have it backwards?
Hi, I’m Dr. Aaron Filler. I’m a spinal neurosurgeon at Cedars Sinai in LA and I’m also a Harvard trained evolutionary biologist. I’ve been interviewed previously on Peter Jennings ABC News and CNN and have recently become a frequent expert commentator on various issues for CNN Radio. In two books earlier this year and in a major scientific article published this month, I’ve reported a solution one of the great mysteries in human evolution. The result is the amazing finding that the human body form – with its upright bipedal walking - goes back 15 million years earlier than most experts have thought. Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) is just 3.5 million years old and her species now pales into relative insignificance. One remarkable implication is that many of the apes are actually descended from human or human-like ancestors who walked on two feet – appearing to meet our current criteria for being called humans rather than apes."
The paper reads like an opinion, NOT a scientific paper at all. Where are his references, where is the support for his conclusions, in fact where are his conclusions? If a graduate student wrote this up for a thesis,. he would not just flunk, he would get laughed at.

Even if you take everything he says as gospel, what is he really saying? The modern man and modern apes ancestor was more man-like than we originally thought. While he uses the phrase non-Darwinian Evolution, where in his little paper does he support that? Even if what he says is true where does it falsifies evolution?

If you believe that, then you have a very misguided picture of evolution.

I looked at his website. It's flashy, but very little actual support for what he claims is a new discovery. All opinion, and all poorly supported. If he is a real doctor and scientist, he needs to do his homework because a blog like this is meaningless.

The fact it might agree with your personal philosophies just goes to show that when someone says something that even sounds remotely like your personal philosophies, you tend to drop all critical thinking and grasp it like it has actual meaning. Try again.

You might try an actual science site instead of blogs and opinions. You might learn something.
ARGUING with IDIOTS

Chico, CA

#40980 Aug 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, I checked out your article and the author is claiming that it is being well received. If that was the case he could have sited a few references. The author is a neurosurgeon. He may very well be out of his specialty.

One author alone cannot make changes as large as he claims. If you cannot supply some actual peer reviewed articles then you lose.
Where did you come up with these standards and can we apply them to both sides of the argument?
Anonymous

Cape Girardeau, MO

#40981 Aug 24, 2012
Good Question!

Where did you come up with these standards and can we apply them to both sides of the argument? Are there many other sides to this particular argument?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#40982 Aug 24, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you come up with these standards and can we apply them to both sides of the argument?
Of course those standards should apply to us too. In fact that is why we love Talk Origins. Those articles always use peer reviewed articles fro references. No double standard here.
Take that with you

Chico, CA

#40983 Aug 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course those standards should apply to us too. In fact that is why we love Talk Origins. Those articles always use peer reviewed articles fro references. No double standard here.
Okay, so how many authors does it take then?

Also, for any article to be offered, it must be reviewed by peers or it can be dismissed?
Anonymous

Cape Girardeau, MO

#40984 Aug 24, 2012
Must we list every author or is it the thought that might actually matter more in certain conditionings.

Level 1

Since: Oct 08

Wellington

#40985 Aug 24, 2012
Wake Up wrote:
It is funny that men have tried to manipulate theWel calendar and change the number of days of the year and the number of months for centuries...but there remained one contant that man has not been able to manipulate and that is seven days in a week in which God, the creator, created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.
Well, that's laughably wrong. For one thing, the "week" has no scientific basis at all, it's purely arbitrary. A year is the time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun.(Yes, I do accept the Godless, unbiblical science if heliocentricity.) A day is the time it takes for the earth to complete one rotation.

A week, on the other hand, could be anything. Four days, seven days, ten days...whatever the prevailing culture finds convenient. The ancient Egyptians and Chinese had ten day weeks.

Our seven day week is based on astrology. There are seven moving things in the sky that can be seen with the naked eye - the sun, the moon, and the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. It's no coincidence that our weekdays are named after those objects.

Level 1

Since: Oct 08

Wellington

#40986 Aug 24, 2012
Wake Up wrote:
I've learned one thing..
Oh, well done! If you keep it up, one day you might have learned two things. Then you'll be twice as clever.
Take that with you

Chico, CA

#40987 Aug 24, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
Must we list every author or is it the thought that might actually matter more in certain conditionings.
Still waiting for the answer to that myself...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#40988 Aug 24, 2012
Take that with you wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so how many authors does it take then?
Also, for any article to be offered, it must be reviewed by peers or it can be dismissed?
It depends upon how strong of a piece of evidence you want your article to be. There is no set number. If you are dong a report on one peer reviewed paper links to that paper may be enough. If you are dealing with a more complex idea it may take several sources to have a fully supported claim. It all depends upon what you are claiming.

And yes, some sort of peer reviewed article is definitely preferred. Otherwise you get the sort of nonsense that Duane Gish vomited.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#40989 Aug 24, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
Must we list every author or is it the thought that might actually matter more in certain conditionings.
Trust me, any important scientifically supported idea has some sort of peer review in these debates. The creationists avoid peer review like the plague because they know deep down inside that there arguments are wrong.
Take that with you

Chico, CA

#40990 Aug 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It depends upon how strong of a piece of evidence you want your article to be. There is no set number. If you are dong a report on one peer reviewed paper links to that paper may be enough. If you are dealing with a more complex idea it may take several sources to have a fully supported claim. It all depends upon what you are claiming.
And yes, some sort of peer reviewed article is definitely preferred. Otherwise you get the sort of nonsense that Duane Gish vomited.
This is sounding a lot different then what the term 'standards' mean.

You won't except just one, but can not provide how many.

If it all depends on the claim, then who makes the decision what standards to use?

Now you state that peer review is prefered? Does that mean peer review is not mandatory?
Take that with you

Chico, CA

#40991 Aug 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Trust me, any important scientifically supported idea has some sort of peer review in these debates. The creationists avoid peer review like the plague because they know deep down inside that there arguments are wrong.
Come on now, so is it just prefered as you stated, or is it mandatory as you are implying?

or do you just want to use what ever fits for you?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#40992 Aug 24, 2012
Take that with you wrote:
<quoted text>
This is sounding a lot different then what the term 'standards' mean.
You won't except just one, but can not provide how many.
If it all depends on the claim, then who makes the decision what standards to use?
Now you state that peer review is prefered? Does that mean peer review is not mandatory?
Please read my post again. I did not say that.

And the word you wanted to use was "accept" not "except".
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#40993 Aug 24, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet your homophobic fears have been shown to be false.
According to the American Psychological Association:
"In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parentin...
First...I Did Not Say They Were Unfit.
Second....The American Psychological Association Speculates And Has No Bearing On Me, OR Authority.

When You LIve With Drunks You More LIkely To Become One.

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 141,786
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 5 hr lozzza 6,160
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 hr Chimney1 19,739
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 14 hr Paul Porter1 186
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Mon Chimney1 560
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Sun Chimney1 178,667
Poll Should Topix create an Philosophy forum? (Oct '09) Jun 26 NoahLovesU 6
More from around the web