• Sections
Evolution vs. Creation

# Evolution vs. Creation

There are 168870 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.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#63313 Dec 5, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
The core of computing is binary encoding. The premise is that each of the transistor switches is either on of off, represented by 1 or 0. Each bit is a BInary digiT.
Each of these switches is more-or-less useless on its own. However, you can arrange them in a sequence to get some logic.
Humans use hexadecimal representation as a form of shorthand for binary. That's a 16-base number system that goes from 0-9 then a-f, then rolls over from 0f to 10.
When you write a computer program, the compiler converts your code into opcode, a hex representation of the binary stream. The CPU interprets the opcodes and follows the program, manipulating bits in the accumulator section. In other words, it reads the binary code and uses that code to switch bits on and off in its "brain". The outgoing data is then sent to various locations in the computer, such as to the sound card, video card, hard disk, RAM, etc. You can do this by mapping each location to a virtual location in the computer. For example, you could set the address 0x2000 to be the sound card, and when you write the data 0x5e41 to 0x2000, the sound card will interpret that data and put out an analog signal to the speakers. You could also read the data at location 0x3000 to see what's on that location in the hard drive.
Okay, that's one of a billion bits of information, I don't Google computer technology, I understand how it works because I have been studying it my whole life. Can you answer anything without Google? How about this question:

How does the Google search engine work? What is the algorithm they use and why does it often pull up only links relevant to your previous searches?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

#63314 Dec 5, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
What are their ways of measuring mutation rates? There are more than one method? that's hard to believe.
Read the article, it should say there. If not you need to talk to a geneticist. That sort of topic would be well understood by a geneticist. When I see that it is a peer reviewed journal and does not appear to be fringy I trust that the peer reviewers knew their job when they let certain claims through. If you don't trust them then you have to learn the science for yourself.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#63315 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't read or reason to well, do you. I mentioned the fact that other dinosaurs had feathers. And flying, yes other animals fly too, but it is also an avian trait. Or are you saying that birds don't fly?
I did not say that feathers are an intermediate trait. They are of course, since an intermediate species would have them. So thanks for pointing that out too.
Poor Maz, still has no clue. Still get's mad when she is shown to be an utter fool.
Technically, isn't it only bats that actually fly? Others really just glide?

Not countering your points, just that I have heard of no other mammals actually flying.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63316 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they may have been found in an unconsolidated sandstone. Your article said that the origin of the whale bones was holocene. It rather politely said that they were planted in the sandstone.
I grew up on a farm with outcrops of what I later learned were St. Peter Sandstone. It is about 470 million years old. It wold form a tough surface that could be easily punctured. Once you were through that you did not use a hammer on it, you used a shovel. It is a very pure quartz sandstone. Quartz by itself does not make a very good cement at all. Where St Peter Sandstone is "quarried" it is dug up for the purity of its sand which has quite a few industrial uses. I am betting that this was the same kind of quarry. All it would take to place the bones in such an outcrop is a shovel and a willingness to dig.
The land form rose above the sea over 290 million years ago. The rest is speculative prattle.

They say not all was above simply because of the whale bones in one explanation. IOW they have speculated parts of the geology based on evolutionary assumptions and nothing more.

IOW the simplicity of these fossils simply being there because that is where they were when the land rose is just too simple for evos and it wrecks their TOE on whales totally. No dino fossils is also explained by your researchers who say they were dragged away by ice sheets. Meaning the land must have sunk or the sea rise above the land form since the last ice age. Der!!!

So whether you like it or not, accept the interpretattion or not, Michagan rose above the sea over 290mya and that is where the whale fossils were found. The rubbish about rising seas is another of many explanations, sounds more like a desperate bedtime story.

Evos hate pasimony and love comlications and will turn any evidence for creation into a mysrery with their hubris.

The other side of the coin is that evolutionists only have fraudulent misreprentation as their support for whale ancestry.

Hence again I say, that no support I provide for my view could possibly be worse than what evolutionists have to present.

The data, whale bones found in strata over 290myo, is hand waved away by numerous hand waving and complicated scenarios, as usual.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

#63317 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't read or reason to well, do you. I mentioned the fact that other dinosaurs had feathers. And flying, yes other animals fly too, but it is also an avian trait. Or are you saying that birds don't fly?
I did not say that feathers are an intermediate trait. They are of course, since an intermediate species would have them. So thanks for pointing that out too.
Poor Maz, still has no clue. Still get's mad when she is shown to be an utter fool.
Wouldn't they be considered dragons then? See...I told you...dragons...evolution...

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

#63318 Dec 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically, isn't it only bats that actually fly? Others really just glide?
Not countering your points, just that I have heard of no other mammals actually flying.
Hmm...the airlines are really going to be disappointed...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

#63320 Dec 5, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I defer to your interpretation of the data.
But the items in question were whale BONES. Not "FOSSILS".
Which in and of itself would preclude them from being 291M years old.
Yes, from the beautiful short but sweet article that you linked:
Preservation: original phosphate, anthropogenic
Four were words that say so much.

"Preservation" or how the bones were preserved.

"original phosphate" here it says that the bones were the original bones, and our bones are largely phosphate. So there it is, no fossilization.

And that leaves the last and most beautiful word: "anthropogenic". Or in other words, people done did put it thar!

In four short words it says that those aren't fossils, they are original bones, and somebody put them in the quarry.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

#63321 Dec 5, 2012
http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/Fossils.html

Biology and The Fossils

When the very first evolutionists began lining up fossils to show that these species had evolved from each other and to prove the concept of evolution, they did not have one piece of biological evidence that any one organism actually did evolve from any one other organism. What they did was to assume (with no scientific basis) that more simple organisms were more primitive and then line the fossils up according to similarities in relation to this assumption.

In other words, there was no evidence that evolution did actually occur. All they did was to line the fossils up in some logical order and CLAIM that they had evolved with absolutely no supporting biological evidence. To this day, evolutionists don't have any biological proof that any one fossil did evolve from any one other fossil. Therefore, they don't have any biological proof that evolution did even occur.

The proof of this is how the evolutionists have and still do constantly move these fossils around in their tree of evolution. If there were scientific evidence that any one fossil actually did evolve from any one other fossil, they would not be able to move these fossils at all. Oops!

Therefore, evolutionists "theory" of evolution is really nothing more than a scientifically unfounded and unsupported CLAIM that life did evolve. I call their very detailed fossil stories fossil fairy tales.

----------

Does Simple = Primitive?

If we go where man has never gone before (again) to our planet and use molecular construction of living organisms to farm life on our new planet, we have to create a completely balanced ecosystem or it will eventually collapse and kill our colonists. Therefore, we must create the simplest organisms at the same time we create the most complex organisms. Biology teaches us that life could continue much longer without the more complex organisms than without the simplest organisms. Therefore, the simplest organisms are required for life to exist on our new planet.

Therefore, I ask,"Are these simple organisms more primitive or are they just structured differently to serve a different function in our ecosystem?"

----------

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#63322 Dec 5, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>

deleted on the grounds that the only thing worse than a liar is a paedophile, don’t ya just love the reputation you are earning for yourself

Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by hubris that explains the data and hand waves it away
Are you still hawking those discredited sites and lying about the credible ones. Completely expected of course

We have been here before and you have been shown to be falsifying your information, lying, relying on lies, misinformation and BS, and selectively, using misdirection, promoting only the parts of the paper that suit your discredited view and ignoring the entirety of the paper, i.e. cherry picking and quote mining. Not only by myself but by several other posters and from several different angles.

I really, when you said again that you could provide evidence thought you had actually found some real evidence but nope, once again you disappoint me

So still waiting for you to keep you word and supply ACTUAL evidence

And still waiting for you to apologise for calling me a liar when I proved it was you who was lying by posting links to the posts that proved you to be a liar

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

#63323 Dec 5, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The land form rose above the sea over 290 million years ago. The rest is speculative prattle.
They say not all was above simply because of the whale bones in one explanation. IOW they have speculated parts of the geology based on evolutionary assumptions and nothing more.
IOW the simplicity of these fossils simply being there because that is where they were when the land rose is just too simple for evos and it wrecks their TOE on whales totally. No dino fossils is also explained by your researchers who say they were dragged away by ice sheets. Meaning the land must have sunk or the sea rise above the land form since the last ice age. Der!!!
So whether you like it or not, accept the interpretattion or not, Michagan rose above the sea over 290mya and that is where the whale fossils were found. The rubbish about rising seas is another of many explanations, sounds more like a desperate bedtime story.
Evos hate pasimony and love comlications and will turn any evidence for creation into a mysrery with their hubris.
The other side of the coin is that evolutionists only have fraudulent misreprentation as their support for whale ancestry.
Hence again I say, that no support I provide for my view could possibly be worse than what evolutionists have to present.
The data, whale bones found in strata over 290myo, is hand waved away by numerous hand waving and complicated scenarios, as usual.
Are you STILL trying to defend that unbelievable bit of trash. Boy, your sources must be awfully dear to you. If I find I have been quoting trash I apologize to people for using that source and never use it again.

One more time. Did you read Kong's article. I still have it handy:

http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl...

In four short words they said: This is crap! Hey, I just did it in three. Of course their words were rather all scientfical weren't they. It sounded so much better when they said it:

"Preservation: original phosphate, anthropogenic"

Or in short: Maz is full of crap.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#63324 Dec 5, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm...the airlines are really going to be disappointed...
That was genuinely funny.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63325 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't read or reason to well, do you. I mentioned the fact that other dinosaurs had feathers. And flying, yes other animals fly too, but it is also an avian trait. Or are you saying that birds don't fly?
I did not say that feathers are an intermediate trait. They are of course, since an intermediate species would have them. So thanks for pointing that out too.
Poor Maz, still has no clue. Still get's mad when she is shown to be an utter fool.
You have lost your evidence for intermediacy and you lot are still struggling.

If dinos had feathers and birds have feathers then feathers are not intermediate. That is one reason why Rhuben suggests that there was a common ancestor that was neither bird nor dino.

So feather were FIRST a dino trait, not a bird trait, so arch was not showing intermediate mic of dino and bird traits, it was showing more dino traits.

Look you struggler. Even the evolutionist himself states arch's traits are no longer intermediate because they have been found in dinos.

Feathers are no longer unique to birds and cannot be relied on. Flight never was as kitten said showing again what an unthinking looser you actually are.

Are you going to suck this up or will I repost the reseach and make a fool of you that way instead?

What about the fraud around the furcula?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

#63326 Dec 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically, isn't it only bats that actually fly? Others really just glide?
Not countering your points, just that I have heard of no other mammals actually flying.
Insects definitely fly. They generate lift, they can fly in no wind from a low spot to a higher spot. Pterodactyls flew. The rest glide, so far. In a few million years some of those may have moved on to flight too. There is more than one road to flight. Mav does not seem to realize that traits are not exclusive. Just because one group of animals has a trait does not mean that others can't have the same trait too.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#63327 Dec 5, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Feathes are not an avian trait, you idiot. You should know that feathers have been found on dinosaurs. TRex had feathers.
Hence Arch having feathers is not in intermediate trait at all. It was when these bright sparks did not know that dinos had feathers but they do now, and you say that you kow of it.
Flying is not an avian trait either you goose. eg bats and insects, pterodactyl, fish can glide and so can other mammals.
So why do you site feathers as being an intermediate trait when they are not? Why do you site flying is an avian trait?
I suggest that the answer is because in actual fact you have no clue, you just want to prattle on because you have faith with nothing of substance to base it on.
And one of the of closest dinosaur ancestors to birds is what?– T, Rex

FYI every stage in evolution is an intermediate trait

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

#63328 Dec 5, 2012
What the heck are "pasimony and comlications"?

I think Mav is foaming at the mouth a bit. She can't see the corrections that her spell checker is giving her.

Since: Sep 12

#63329 Dec 5, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting thought - given most religions subscribe to ideas similar to the ten commandments. So, if I read you correctly, you argue that good works are sufficient to gain entrance to heaven? Surely that runs counter to the doctrine of the church and especially of the evangelical wing? So why do so many try to use the threat of hell to frighten people into believing in Christ? Not being awkward, would like your view.
As a Christian I believe hell is there. However scaring people to God doesn't work. Telling people about love and acceptance through Christ keeps people listening. Jesus/God want people to love them and I feel with live comes respect not fear.
Man does not go to heaven for good works. What the bible is saying there is how can God punish a man for a sin he didn't know he was guilty of? So for those who have never heard the truth of God they wouldn't know.
So where men don't know any better there is no sin.
Now I should say not everyone agrees with me here.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#63330 Dec 5, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Those articles suggest that epistasis decreases the rate of adaption and evolution. They do not suggest that evolution does not happen. You are making that up.
So, please stop making this ridiculous article and pointing to scientific articles that do not in any way shape or form suggest what you say they do. Doing so simply destroys the extremely limited credibility that you have.
She is a liar, I have been through these two science mag articles with her before. It appears that she simply read the titles and had no clue about the content of the papers

In her defence the titles do suggest that they represent creation and it’s not really here fault that she is to dim witted to understand that what she is posting actually goes towards proving here case to be incorrect

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

#63331 Dec 5, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You have lost your evidence for intermediacy and you lot are still struggling.
If dinos had feathers and birds have feathers then feathers are not intermediate. That is one reason why Rhuben suggests that there was a common ancestor that was neither bird nor dino.
So feather were FIRST a dino trait, not a bird trait, so arch was not showing intermediate mic of dino and bird traits, it was showing more dino traits.
Look you struggler. Even the evolutionist himself states arch's traits are no longer intermediate because they have been found in dinos.
Feathers are no longer unique to birds and cannot be relied on. Flight never was as kitten said showing again what an unthinking looser you actually are.
Are you going to suck this up or will I repost the reseach and make a fool of you that way instead?
What about the fraud around the furcula?
Some dinosaurs had feathers and yes, an intermediate form would be expected to have them. So by definition they are an intermediate trait. Flight is not necessarily an intermediate, if the first birds did not fly then of course its ancestors would not have flown either. But assuming birds flew then yes, flight would also be an intermediate trait.

See the problem is that our way of dividing animals is partly based upon the false idea of "kinds". Evolution is a gradual process so there are never any hard boundaries. There is no definite point where you say, this is a bird and this is a dinosaur. That is why many scientists now have two branches of dinosaurs those that evolved into birds and are still alive today and those that did not and died out. The avian dinosaurs are a bit more interesting to many since they want to track exactly where birds came from.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#63332 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Insects definitely fly. They generate lift, they can fly in no wind from a low spot to a higher spot. Pterodactyls flew. The rest glide, so far. In a few million years some of those may have moved on to flight too. There is more than one road to flight. Mav does not seem to realize that traits are not exclusive. Just because one group of animals has a trait does not mean that others can't have the same trait too.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63333 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you STILL trying to defend that unbelievable bit of trash. Boy, your sources must be awfully dear to you. If I find I have been quoting trash I apologize to people for using that source and never use it again.
One more time. Did you read Kong's article. I still have it handy:
http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl...
In four short words they said: This is crap! Hey, I just did it in three. Of course their words were rather all scientfical weren't they. It sounded so much better when they said it:
"Preservation: original phosphate, anthropogenic"
Or in short: Maz is full of crap.
The link is useless and does not identify what it has dated.

As I said the land form is over 290myo and numerous stories around the whale bones have been invented to save the evolutionary day.
This is the article abstrats of the link cited.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j....

We know that the tectonic setting of Indiana has remained relatively stable for the last 650 million years because the rocks are still relatively flat and undisturbed. The rocks do however change in thickness across the state. This is because they were deposited in low spots called basins and over high spots called arches . Indiana is bridged by an arch that stretches from the southeast corner of the state to the northwest corner. This arch is called the "Kankakee" arch and is a gentle bend or curve in the bedrock. This arch separates two basins located in the northeast and southwest portions of the state. These basins are round depressions or bowls in the bedrock that collected sediments as they were generated by marine animals or washed in from other sources. Within Indiana these two basins are called the Michigan and Illinois basins (see figure to the right).

The youngest bedrock formations that occur in Indiana are 290 million years old.

http://igs.indiana.edu/Bedrock/tectonic.cfm

I'm off for a couple days interstate with work. Catch you in a couple of days.

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.