Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173361 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.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#50908 Oct 7, 2012
Questions for Evolutionists:

Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote,“Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8 See:‘Just-so’ stories of sex and family life.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#50909 Oct 7, 2012
Questions for Evolutionists:

Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated:“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote,“It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers ….”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? See: Is evolution relevant or helpful to real science?

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#50910 Oct 7, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to take up all your crap with evolutionary scientists. Trouble is they generally don't want to waste time on your creationist bulls--t. There is nothing that creationists have come up with in the last 25 years that real scientists haven't been able to discredit.
Creationist are just dead wrong in everything they have brought up.
Christianity is a man-made religion, just like ALL of the others.
But i thought all the experts were on here.
Hahahahaha!

This isn;t about Christianity.

Its about Creationism vs evolution.
DUH!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#50911 Oct 7, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Report it to Topix then.
I placed quotation marks before each question.
Why does it bother you so much?
All I'm doing is my homework on the topic.
Suddenly you feel threatened by this information and want to suppress my freedom of speech.
Typical liberal!
Spamming is rude and inconsiderate. You are not doing your homework, you are attempting a Gish Gallup. It is a dishonest technique used by cretinists where they spout a whole bunch of untrue claims and are not really interested in the truth of the matter.

And as I said, I don't report people. I am sometimes guilty of breaking the rules here myself. To report people would therefore make me a creationist, oops I mean hypocrite.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#50912 Oct 7, 2012
President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated:“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote,“It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers ….”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? See: Is evolution relevant or helpful to real science?
You really need to ask? Most new antibiotics are based upon evolution. The exploration for oil that you put in your car is based upon evolution. If you don't believe evolution then you should not be a hypocrite and drive using oil that was found based upon that theory.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#50913 Oct 7, 2012
President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote,“Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8 See:‘Just-so’ stories of sex and family life.
There is no "just so" story telling by evolution. That is a flaw of creationism. Perhaps you meant something else.

Just so stories are a creationist trademark.

“WISDOM IS A GIFT”

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#50914 Oct 7, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't want dialogue.
They want to dominate and suppress opposing opinions.
Well I am a Deist and therefore believe in intelligent design.
I may not ascribe to a particular religion but I find several of them fascinating and I believe the doctrine of Jesus Christ to be a good guideline for human beings to follow above all other theological doctrines.
If for no other reason than the fact that if everyone could live up to his teachings, we would have paradise on earth.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#50915 Oct 7, 2012
President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
"How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? See: G.K. Chesterton: Darwinism is ‘An attack upon thought itself’.
Chemistry is not blind. So the very basis of your claim is shot down. Take a chemistry class and try asking the question again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#50916 Oct 7, 2012
President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
"Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? See: Evolutionist Dr John Endler’s refreshing clarity about ‘natural selection’ has been largely ignored.
Because it is not just natural selection. It is natural selection along with natural variation that drives evolution. Creationists tend to look at only one at a time since evolution can be debunked if it is based solely upon natural variation or natural selection. It cannot be debunked when both are working.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#50917 Oct 7, 2012
President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
"How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote,“we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”3 See: Design in living organisms (motors: ATP synthase)(includes animation).
Once again chemistry is not blind. And you may want to check out the various articles on abiognesis on the internet. Since you are Gish Galloping I am doing an anti Gish Gallop. To find out why you are wrong you will have to do some work for yourself.

“WISDOM IS A GIFT”

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#50918 Oct 7, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Spamming is rude and inconsiderate. You are not doing your homework, you are attempting a Gish Gallup. It is a dishonest technique used by cretinists where they spout a whole bunch of untrue claims and are not really interested in the truth of the matter.
And as I said, I don't report people. I am sometimes guilty of breaking the rules here myself. To report people would therefore make me a creationist, oops I mean hypocrite.
I happen to find some of the other posts on here to be far more rude than the questions this poster is asking.
It seems to me that you are less bothered by the so-called spamming and more upset about the content of legitimate questions being asked about the topic at hand.

As I told the other poster, I'm not a scientist but I do find his/her posts provocative and interesting.
It may be that the truth lies somewhere in between intelligent design and evolution, but you seem to dismiss all argument that doesn't comply with your views.
That is not constructive debate.
IMHO!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#50919 Oct 7, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Random numbers?
Fail!
It was not random number, again, you are thinking like a cretinist. It was random mutations of words plus natural selection. By now it has been done. Live with it. Evolution does not work by only natural selection or random mutation, it works on both together. That is why the usual monkey example fails, they only used random variation. Add in natural selection and there was no problem.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#50920 Oct 7, 2012
FALCONER wrote:
<quoted text>
I happen to find some of the other posts on here to be far more rude than the questions this poster is asking.
It seems to me that you are less bothered by the so-called spamming and more upset about the content of legitimate questions being asked about the topic at hand.
As I told the other poster, I'm not a scientist but I do find his/her posts provocative and interesting.
It may be that the truth lies somewhere in between intelligent design and evolution, but you seem to dismiss all argument that doesn't comply with your views.
That is not constructive debate.
IMHO!
Nope, sorry, not so. His posting of questions that have been answered before without waiting for an answer is the ultimate rudeness on an internet debate site.

His posts are all questions that have been asked and answered before. They are not interesting. Even he knows that since he runs away from his questions as soon as he asks them.

The man is a putz.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#50921 Oct 7, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
"Niche" is your scientific answer?
Fail!
Why do you think an animal has to evolve? No fail. That would be you.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#50922 Oct 7, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Spamming is rude and inconsiderate. You are not doing your homework, you are attempting a Gish Gallup. It is a dishonest technique used by cretinists where they spout a whole bunch of untrue claims and are not really interested in the truth of the matter.
And as I said, I don't report people. I am sometimes guilty of breaking the rules here myself. To report people would therefore make me a creationist, oops I mean hypocrite.
Rude is signing out of your profile,coming back on as a grey sock and using foul language and personal insults such as "Tard" Usually at the end of whatever other descriptive word, as well as making personal threats of throwing someone in a trunk,"Better not come to my town BS!
That is rude.
I posted questions which I happen to read before I posted them and found them appropriate to this thread.
You don't have to agree with the questions or even answer them, but if what I'm doing is "spamming" Then you go on and report away.
I'll be happy to explain to Topix that the other posters on here used data they gathered,copy/pasted and leave links for virtually everything.
I was completely on topic. You just don't like the questions.

"Stuff's gettin better"
2012

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#50923 Oct 7, 2012
Questions for Evolutionists:

"Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said,“Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12 See: A valid distinction: origins science versus operational science.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#50924 Oct 7, 2012
Questions for Evolutionists:

Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….” Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted,“Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? See: The religious nature of evolution,“It’s not science”.
Buzzin Fr0g

Honolulu, HI

#50925 Oct 7, 2012
BuzzinFr0g wrote:
Another question I have is about the deity's awareness of his own future actions. In the Old Testament the deity sometimes acts and then later regrets the decision. For example, The Flood. Doesn't he express to Noah afterword that he is sorry for his action and in the future will not create another such cataclysm in response to 'waywardness'? That would indicate a lack of foresight as well as an ability to act irrationally (even if having such foresight), both of which seem at odds with being a 'perfect' entity. Correct?
Repost since this was jumped over.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#50926 Oct 7, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to ask? Most new antibiotics are based upon evolution. The exploration for oil that you put in your car is based upon evolution. If you don't believe evolution then you should not be a hypocrite and drive using oil that was found based upon that theory.
I happen to know the history of both antibiotics and oil (As in their discovery and use by man)
Man discovered,manipulated their properties and utilized the end product.
It was hardly random.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#50927 Oct 7, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Rude is signing out of your profile,coming back on as a grey sock and using foul language and personal insults such as "Tard" Usually at the end of whatever other descriptive word, as well as making personal threats of throwing someone in a trunk,"Better not come to my town BS!
That is rude.
I posted questions which I happen to read before I posted them and found them appropriate to this thread.
You don't have to agree with the questions or even answer them, but if what I'm doing is "spamming" Then you go on and report away.
I'll be happy to explain to Topix that the other posters on here used data they gathered,copy/pasted and leave links for virtually everything.
I was completely on topic. You just don't like the questions.
"Stuff's gettin better"
2012
No, rude is inviting people to call you a "tard". Who has called you a tard to day anyway?

Yes, the others here try to properly answer questions. Go ahead and tell that to Topix. And you are showing your idiocy since I have to tell you for the third time that I do not report people. I have even let violent threats slip by, which is much more of a no no than simple bad language. As you know that would make me a creationist, I mean hypocrite.

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
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 4 min Critical Eye 93
The Definition of a Creationist Scientist 12 min Critical Eye 105
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 76
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr Chimney1 143,899
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 10 hr Zog Has-fallen 55
Is the Evolutionary theory mathematically prove... 18 hr Chimney1 134
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory Thu Chimney1 420
More from around the web