Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#74304 Feb 6, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Only the real God is the real Scientist.
Why do you say this?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#74305 Feb 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
A public school, that is currently teaching what a virus is, and the debate on whether it is a living organism or not.
Oh, were you expecting it to be a private religious school? Sorry, I don't make that kind of money. But you attitude is noted, and disqualifies you from any rational discussions forthwith, since the subject was on viruses and someone else's absurd claim that they "evolve" which not even my son's very atheist, and very anti-religious biology teacher teaches. Fortunately, his brillance makes up for it in good, solid reasoning in just about everything but his assumption that evolution is valid. I let my son draw his own conclusions, FREE from propaganda and political bias from people like you that ruin science.
Don't post to me again. You are not fit to engage in any sort of discussion at all by your tone.
Don't talk about tone, you are downright offensive from the start.
You engage, you get it wrong.

So the idea is to explain.
What follows is more wrong.

So your son knows best.
You have told everyone of.
So what are we to do with someone like you.
Given that we are bored anyway and just waisting some time...your entertainment.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#74306 Feb 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the contrary.
If I use proof incorrectly, it is out of habit to the majority who also use it incorrectly. You are correct on that count, but that by no means supports your assertion.
And no, evolution is not tested, and has never passed any test in the approximately 150 years its been around. Biology has only diminished its value as we have learned more, and the fossil records do not support it at all.
"In fact by the most strict definition of evolution they do evolve."
Strict definition? Did you think I would miss that? Yes, by the strict definition of evolution:
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
Which is NOT the theory of evolution, or the model.
Are you deliberately being dishonest by now truing to use non-scientific meaning of evolution? Or did it just happen to slip your mind?
And I don't need any help whatsoever from Creationists to detect a fraud. I rather miss evolution as the dominate world view, for entirely other reasons. But I can lie to myself no longer.
Oh no, you are letting your inner idiot out.

Of course evolution has been tested. It has just not been tested by creatards. One of the simplest examples of a test is to look for a Cambrian rabbit. A Cambrian rabbit would debunk evolution. No one has ever found a Cambrian rabbit. Now according to creationism there is no reason that we should not find one. No Cambrian rabbit has been found. Evolution passed that test, creationism failed, to date. Now that could always change but it is highly doubtful.

No, I was talking about a strict scientific definition of evolution. Or to put it another way: The change in allele frequency of a population over time.

By that definition viruses evolve.

And yes, you may not know it but creationists lie all of the time. The reason that you don't know they are lying is that you don't know science. For example anytime you hear a creation site say either "evolutionists say.." or "evolution says..." The odds are over 90% that the rest of the sentence will be a lie. Not a mistake because they have been corrected many times. If someone corrects you on a mistake, especially if that "mistake" is derogatory that is no longer a mistake. It is a lie.

The also lie by a process called quote mining. More about that later.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#74307 Feb 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolute proof would require a time machine. But putting forth that an INTERPRETATION of data us absolute evidence, you just outed yourself out as a very ignorant, and arrogant person.
People like you is why we have so many wars and chaos on this planet.
Wait, what?

People start wars over geology and fossils?

When did THAT happen?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#74308 Feb 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you, the scientific model ITSELF is the source.
The data provided by nearly 150 years of evolutionists is the SOURCE.
It is all there, clear as day, to obvious it is a testament to true potential of utter stupidly of humanity that it still remains in the scientific community.
The theory itself is the best, and greatest evidence against itself.
Once again, it is clear you do not understand the theory or its model.

The fossil record only supports the theory of evolution. It in no way supports creationism.

“The Party Animal”

Level 2

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#74309 Feb 6, 2013
After being created,I evolved,now it seems that I am desolving,just finishing a program

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#74310 Feb 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidence? You all keep saying there's evidence yet none has been presented. Until you do, claiming there's evidence is a lie.
Evidence has always been presented.

Just look around.

Either, you assert that all of this universe is an accident, or you assert that it is by design.

It's one or the other. The extreme complexity that science has brought to light in the last 100 years or more, is testament to design, not accident. The complexity of a single cell is far beyond anything expected, infinitely more complex than anyone ever dreamed of. How cells communicate with each other, which is raw data transfer between countless trillions of cells is infinitely greater than all the supercomputers built, even if we had a million more of them than we do now. The sheer processing power of all the cells in any organism is staggering. We know LESS, not more, about how life works than we ever did before. We have raised far more questions, then answered them, in recent years.

That is real scientific evidence. Not proof, but absolutely evidence.

Nor is it a Christian view only. The Greeks, though logic alone, concluded that there can be only one God, or creator of the universe, by logical deduction. Having no knowledge of this Creator, they offered no name, and thought he was too might and aloof to care about humanity. Even they knew it was too complex, having only the faintest idea of the atom, to be an accident. Even the average human mind rejects out of intuition the notion that all of this exists from an accident.

If you free your mind from all prejudices and preconceived notions, you might see it yourself. And what you assumed was ancient superstition, becomes a new respect for your very intelligent ancestors that are not as stupid as you thought.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#74311 Feb 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you, the scientific model ITSELF is the source.
The data provided by nearly 150 years of evolutionists is the SOURCE.
It is all there, clear as day, to obvious it is a testament to true potential of utter stupidly of humanity that it still remains in the scientific community.
The theory itself is the best, and greatest evidence against itself.
So then you look up a dictionary definition and find biology involved.
If you learn more you find that it is interdiciplinary but with a big chunk of statistics involved.

-Biology.
-And it is science based.
So first we need to get that straightened out.
-Then the definition. The dictionary one is not bad, but indeed we usually talk about groups, populations, and not whether a kid get's born with brown eyes, while you have blue eyes.
The definition also evolved, got refined, together with our understanding. Models likewise.
-Statistics.
-Everything else involved.

And why should evolution and religion bite...they do not.

?So where did you get this oneliner that states:
The theory itself is the best, and greatest evidence against itself.

??

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#74312 Feb 6, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
So what are you trying to prove?
That all species are not constantly evolving?
I agree.
But I never heard anyone say that.
I have only heard people say that a population evolves when a stress compels that population to either evolve or go extinct.
I'm not trying to prove anything.

Evolutionists have been busy doing that for quite some time.

Are you asserting that all species are evolving? Well then, provide evidence. I'd LOVE to see it.

I've heard people say many things. You need to hang out with more people, and learn more, if that is all you've ever heard people say. Quaint theory, though. And absurd. Populations self-regulate when they run out of food, no need to either evolve or go extinct. Mankind only had about %5 of the current population 2000 years ago. And we could easily go back to that, and much less, without running the risk of being endangered. Our populations have risen and fallen many times over world history, without either going extinct or evolving.

Where do people get this stuff?

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#74313 Feb 6, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationists and fundamentalists have been trying to bury and have been telling us that evolution will go down for over 150 years now.
Last time I looked every scientific organization on EARTH still supports it, and it is ONLY religionists who don't.
I wonder why that is??
Wrong.

Evolution was universally embraced in the late 1800's before we knew much about biology at all. Catholics almost universally adapted it, and still do. Theistic evolution became the gold standard, and Christians have done more to advance the theory than atheists by FAR. It is, in fact, mostly a CHRISTIAN error, as the majority of scientists that promoted it in the beginning were Christians, and also Jews.

Same holds true for the Big Bang theory, which also was moved forward by Christians, while atheists denounced it and fought against it tooth and nail.

Not only are you lying, you then attempt to appeal to authority, knowing full well that majority support is not evidence of scientific validity. Every scientific organization ALSO once accepted Eugenics, and many other perverse theories. So what?

Humans makes mistakes all the times, including, and especially, scientists who are desperate to win approval and support to get more funding.

I have very little respect for people like you, sir. Such ignorance is almost unforgivable, and poses a very real threat to science and society in general.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#74314 Feb 6, 2013
Yankee, you obviously have no clue how evolution works, how long it takes, or what the driving force of evolution are.

You cannot debunk an idea that you do not understand. All you can do is to look like a fool.

Try to ask reasonable questions.

Do you know what the theory of evolution predicts that we would see in the fossil record?

Aargh. Ask questions and we will give you answers. Make stupid statements and we will tell you that your statements are stupid and why.

Your choice.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#74315 Feb 6, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
On the surface, it seems logical.
If you add a smaller positive integer and a larger negative integer, you get a negative integer.
But it doesn't work that way.
If you run for office and your opponent gets more votes than you do, you lose the election.
But it doesn't work that way.
Rather, this is how it works:
favorable mutations are inherited, unfavorable mutations are not.
An unfavorable mutation could hurt a member's chances of surviving until child-bearing age.
An unfavorable mutation could also render a member unattractive, thereby hurting his or her chances of finding mates.
A favorable mutation, on the other hand, helps a member and helps that member's descendents.
A better analogy could be found in the arts and the media.
We forget everything which is unpopular and remember only that which is popular.
What songs did Petulah Clark sing besides "Downtown"?
Nobody knows and nobody cares.
What did Kyu Sakamoto sing besides "Sukiyaki"?
Nobody knows and nobody cares.
What operas did Englebert Humperdinck compose besides "Hansel and Gretel"?
Nobody knows and nobody cares.
Back to the topic:
What harmful mutations have taken place?
Nobody knows and nobody cares.
All true, until you get to the math, and the percentage of such mutations happening often enough to make even an iota of difference.

That's probably why evolution seemed so attractive in the olden says, before we knew better. The model is no longer sustainable by current science.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#74316 Feb 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It is bad form to applaud for idiotic posts.
Do you realize how many points he was totally wrong on?
None.

Do you realize that you are either lying, or that so entrenched in your false world view that you might go insane?

Stop trying to peddle your anti-scientific views of evolution. It's time to move on, and progress to real science. People like you need to get out of the way, and shut up.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#74317 Feb 6, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't feed the troll.
Not even with Memes...my goodness.
MAAT, you are the troll.

Just go back and review your own posts, and it's open vile and hatred towards those that dare to disagree with your anti-science views.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#74318 Feb 6, 2013
SZ: No, I was talking about a strict scientific definition of evolution. Or to put it another way: The change in allele frequency of a population over time.

By that definition viruses evolve.

Now the one thatis not efecting the DNA.
F.i. hormonal effects.
Molecular basis of epigenetics
Epigenetic changes can modify the activation of certain genes, but not the sequence of DNA. Additionally, the chromatin proteins associated with DNA may be activated or silenced. This is why the differentiated cells in a multi-cellular organism express only the genes that are necessary for their own activity. Epigenetic changes are preserved when cells divide. Most epigenetic changes only occur within the course of one individual organism's lifetime, but, if gene disactivation occurs in a sperm or egg cell that results in fertilization, then some epigenetic changes can be transferred to the next generation.[14] This raises the question of whether or not epigenetic changes in an organism can alter the basic structure of its DNA (see Evolution, below), a form of Lamarckism.

Specific epigenetic processes include paramutation, bookmarking, imprinting, gene silencing, X chromosome inactivation, position effect, reprogramming, transvection, maternal effects, the progress of carcinogenesis, many effects of teratogens, regulation of histone modifications and heterochromatin, and technical limitations affecting parthenogenesis and cloning.

Epigenetic research uses a wide range of molecular biologic techniques to further our understanding of epigenetic phenomena, including chromatin immunoprecipitation (together with its large-scale variants ChIP-on-chip and ChIP-Seq), fluorescent in situ hybridization, methylation-sensitive restriction enzymes, DNA adenine methyltransferase identification (DamID) and bisulfite sequencing. Furthermore, the use of bioinformatic methods is playing an increasing role (computational epigenetics).

Computer simulations and molecular dynamics approaches revealed the atomistic motions associated with the molecular recognition of the histone tail through an allosteric mechanism.[15]

wiki
So reading that you studied it all, though you gave up 10 yeaars ago -so missed the upkeep- I would presume that you could give a stronger defence for your position.

Self-reference just makes us go in a loop.
Because of the theory of evolution the theory of evolution is not true. gobbldegook.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#74319 Feb 6, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't talk about tone, you are downright offensive from the start.
You engage, you get it wrong.
So the idea is to explain.
What follows is more wrong.
So your son knows best.
You have told everyone of.
So what are we to do with someone like you.
Given that we are bored anyway and just waisting some time...your entertainment.
MAAT, people you like are an offense to the whole human race that has lost countless years, and decades trying to prove a false theory. People like you has probably resulted in the unbelievable loss of scientific progress towards whole new technologies and discoveries. The sheer loss of mind-power in the pursuit of evolution is staggering.

I not only do not respect people like you. I regard such people as your as terrorists. You are very offense to each and every one of us, an embarrassment to science as a whole, and a poor excuse for a human being.

I am not here to dilly-dally in this charade. I am here to go far beyond the pale, and expose every single person that supports evolution as the modern day flat-earthers of our century. Because that is what you are, a primitive relic of the 1800's long overdue for extinction.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#74320 Feb 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
None.
Do you realize that you are either lying, or that so entrenched in your false world view that you might go insane?
Stop trying to peddle your anti-scientific views of evolution. It's time to move on, and progress to real science. People like you need to get out of the way, and shut up.
No, all of the point you tried to make you were wrong on.

So what part of evolution do you thinks is "anti-science".

P.S., it is a good idea to avoid creationist sites when it comes to looking for evidence and arguments. They are filled with liar and convicted felons.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#74321 Feb 6, 2013
I feel like educating people tonight.

Science only, no propaganda.

Yahoo, how old do you think the Solar System and the Earth are?

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#74322 Feb 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh no, you are letting your inner idiot out.
Of course evolution has been tested. It has just not been tested by creatards. One of the simplest examples of a test is to look for a Cambrian rabbit. A Cambrian rabbit would debunk evolution. No one has ever found a Cambrian rabbit. Now according to creationism there is no reason that we should not find one. No Cambrian rabbit has been found. Evolution passed that test, creationism failed, to date. Now that could always change but it is highly doubtful.
No, I was talking about a strict scientific definition of evolution. Or to put it another way: The change in allele frequency of a population over time.
By that definition viruses evolve.
And yes, you may not know it but creationists lie all of the time. The reason that you don't know they are lying is that you don't know science. For example anytime you hear a creation site say either "evolutionists say.." or "evolution says..." The odds are over 90% that the rest of the sentence will be a lie. Not a mistake because they have been corrected many times. If someone corrects you on a mistake, especially if that "mistake" is derogatory that is no longer a mistake. It is a lie.
The also lie by a process called quote mining. More about that later.
LOL!!

But I don't support Creationism, and make no arguments or assertions.

I am merely tired of so much time being wasted on flat-earth theories like evolution.

Get over it, and move on.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#74323 Feb 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
MAAT, you are the troll.
Just go back and review your own posts, and it's open vile and hatred towards those that dare to disagree with your anti-science views.
Only to those that chase away moreinteresting posters with an actual scientific background, you must mean.
And you are so thick-skulled that you don't even notice how offensive your stance is when people act interested.
I'm not here to feed your pride or your overblown ego.
Nor do i believe your underdog stance for even a minute.
(I'm so poor, can't afford a better school. Tosh)
People with less than you to go on can provide their kids a good education, just by using their brain and the library.

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
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 1 hr Patrick 332
Difficulty Loading Topix Pages 5 hr Gillette 8
New review critical of "Origins" 6 hr DanFromSmithville 21
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 6 hr Mugwump 173,750
Need clarification on evolution 13 hr Dogen 7
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 13 hr Chimney1 517
Darwin on the rocks 13 hr Dogen 1
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••