Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209837 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.

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#80097 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Just checking, but is this your idea of civil discussion?
all humor has an element of truth ... deal w/ it
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80098 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
atheist religious doctrine 102 = Because we believe there is no God .. Human life is therefore not sacred and can be exterminated given the proper circumstance / rationalization and will ..
Creationist religious doctrine 102 = Because we believe there is a God .. Human life is therefore not sacred and can be exterminated given the proper circumstance / rationalization and will. Unless they agree with us about God.
His-truth wrote:
40+ years of legalized abortion ??.. and some might wonder why we have a generation of youth that would take what you have and kill you without a second thought
Would you rescue 10 zygotes in test tubes from a fire or one baby?

I notice you have now discarded civilised discussion in favour of ad-homs against atheists. Presumably your previous high horse has galloped away into the sunset.
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#80099 Mar 9, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>My "lack of belief"?
If by that you mean my reluctance to accept your hallucinations as my own, okay.
Point of fact: the fossil record provides a clear and demonstrated line of descent from the earliest life-forms to the most recent.
The geological column provides an accurate time frame for the same.
There is absolutely NO reason to inject a deity into the process.
Oh how duped you are little boy. The fossil record is far from complete and does have problems (mainly along the lines of the species problem). But those problems are not the only issues with it like the anagenesis verses cladogenesis which still have not been resolved in the interpretations of the fossil records.

As for injecting a diety into the process, I don't believe I have done that. I have stated that it is possible that our entire understanding could have been created, I have stated that science doesn't do religion because religion is not scientifically testable. Any statements about a deity will not be scientific.

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#80100 Mar 9, 2013
well .. it's been fun .. see yall later .. Saturday evening .. time to go watch a movie [Red Dawn].. otta be good ... http://www.nwrnetwork.com/listen/player.asp... .. later
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80101 Mar 9, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go again! A maternity ward is proof of existing life producing life. You damn right I claim natural chemical processes without existing life, can produce life. If you claim that you are a seriously brainwashed puddle goo fundie awash in denial. Or just a liar, either one fits.
Life IS chemistry. You are in effect a walking talking bag of chemicals. Stop that chemistry and it's goodbye Tennessee.

And none of those fit because you're unable to demonstrate either.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80102 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
not so fast skippy ... http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Then what's the "scientific theory" of IDC?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80103 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
all humor has an element of truth ... deal w/ it
Oh, I was dealing with it. By pointing out your hypocrisy.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80104 Mar 9, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Oh how duped you are little boy. The fossil record is far from complete and does have problems (mainly along the lines of the species problem). But those problems are not the only issues with it like the anagenesis verses cladogenesis which still have not been resolved in the interpretations of the fossil records.
And labelling problems aside what is clear is evolutionary progression. Which is in turn backed up by genetics:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#80105 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If they are genetically incompatible then they're different species.
They are not genetically incomparable. That's the point of calling it a red hearing. Dogs are claimed to be a ring species and it is often cited the problems of a great dane mating with a Chihuahuas. The problem is, this is entirely possible, the breed of chuiuaua gets up to 40lbs but what we commonly see is the toy varieties that weight less then 9lbs and often less then 2 lbs because of fashion (9lbs was a limit placed by one of the major shows for showing the dogs). Chihuahuas were originally bread to hunt deer by the Aztecs. Almost every other ring species out there has these artificial limits as their reasonings.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not talking about those who are still genetically close enough to breed.
Which ones are you talking about? All instances of speciation I am aware of are capable of this. Even the new species of orchids, when left to their own device returned to the previous species within couple generations but even they were not genetically incapable of pollinating other orchids.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is irrelevant since there is still observable change, which is what evolution predicts.
IT most certainly is not irrelevant because change is not all evolution predicts. It predicts new species from that change and here we have observed the same species which would be misidentified as separate species had we not known of them in reality.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then go take it up with the hard core atheists.(shrug)
I intend to. thanks for the words of encouragement... lol

I didn't mean to sound as if that was your problem somehow. Just that the two are not completely inseparable as science is in some cases replacing the religion for the Atheist.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#80106 Mar 9, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You need to learn basic English. Re-read my post. I did not say the DNA repair system actually cause many mutations. You would not say this if you truly understand the concept of DNA repair system. Do you have the math to back up the claim of successful mutations in a species that can be overcome by the DNA repair system? Their I re-worded it for you.
No, you need to reread, I stated that the "repair system" causes many of the mutations, I did not say you did.

Now, trying to ignore your obvious contradiction in telling someone else to "learn basic English" and then using the incorrect "there/their/they're " ... which just makes me think you are too disconnected from reality to even bother explaining, your question not makes zero sense.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#80107 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
not so fast skippy ... http://www.youtube.com/watch...
That's not evidence, that is called a blind assertion, or more scientifically known as anthropomorphizing. Why do you people not get the difference between an assertion and evidence? it's like trying to ask a color blind person what color something is.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#80108 Mar 9, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>They are not genetically incomparable. That's the point of calling it a red hearing. Dogs are claimed to be a ring species and it is often cited the problems of a great dane mating with a Chihuahuas. The problem is, this is entirely possible, the breed of chuiuaua gets up to 40lbs but what we commonly see is the toy varieties that weight less then 9lbs and often less then 2 lbs because of fashion (9lbs was a limit placed by one of the major shows for showing the dogs). Chihuahuas were originally bread to hunt deer by the Aztecs. Almost every other ring species out there has these artificial limits as their reasonings.
<quoted text>Which ones are you talking about? All instances of speciation I am aware of are capable of this. Even the new species of orchids, when left to their own device returned to the previous species within couple generations but even they were not genetically incapable of pollinating other orchids.
<quoted text>IT most certainly is not irrelevant because change is not all evolution predicts. It predicts new species from that change and here we have observed the same species which would be misidentified as separate species had we not known of them in reality.
<quoted text>I intend to. thanks for the words of encouragement... lol
I didn't mean to sound as if that was your problem somehow. Just that the two are not completely inseparable as science is in some cases replacing the religion for the Atheist.
If the chihuahua is 40 pounds, it's not a chihuahua. Chihuahuas are a particular species of canine bred to be small, through a method of genetic manipulation called selective breeding. When they say that a species is incompatible, they are not talking about "the thingy doesn't fit," the genes themselves cannot produce viable offspring through natural reproduction, that's what it means. Please learn some actual science, or at least learn what science is, before you continue making a total fool of yourself.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#80109 Mar 9, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>If that is all you can offer, you need to go sit this out in the creationist corner too. At some point in evolution, life had to be created (abiogenesis or creation, pick one or make something else up, it doesn't matter).
BTW, "observed fact" of redundant. A scientific fact is an observation, you are essentially saying an "observed observation" in some attempt (knowingly or unknowingly) to lend more credit to the term fact in reference to the scientific method.
Well lets see…..

Just recently RNA and DNA chemical precursors were found in space, awhile back DNA was found on a meteor in Australia. We already know that there’s oxygen and water all over space.

Sounds to me like all we need now is a planet. The telescopes and other instruments we have in space have already found over 2700 planets revolving around other suns relatively close to our earth, just think how many there must be in the whole universe. 250,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy alone, 250,000,000,000 more galaxies out there. I think life is almost everywhere….some of it may even be sentient.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#80110 Mar 9, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Well lets see…..
Just recently RNA and DNA chemical precursors were found in space, awhile back DNA was found on a meteor in Australia. We already know that there’s oxygen and water all over space.
Sounds to me like all we need now is a planet. The telescopes and other instruments we have in space have already found over 2700 planets revolving around other suns relatively close to our earth, just think how many there must be in the whole universe. 250,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy alone, 250,000,000,000 more galaxies out there. I think life is almost everywhere….some of it may even be sentient.
Don't even need the oxygen if there is water.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#80111 Mar 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you need to reread, I stated that the "repair system" causes many of the mutations, I did not say you did.
Now, trying to ignore your obvious contradiction in telling someone else to "learn basic English" and then using the incorrect "there/their/they're " ... which just makes me think you are too disconnected from reality to even bother explaining, your question not makes zero sense.
So you're going to pick on a typo to prove that you understand English? Why don't you state a real argument on the subject instead of spell-checking? It makes zero sense because you do not understand it.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#80112 Mar 9, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Well lets see…..
Just recently RNA and DNA chemical precursors were found in space, awhile back DNA was found on a meteor in Australia. We already know that there’s oxygen and water all over space.
Sounds to me like all we need now is a planet. The telescopes and other instruments we have in space have already found over 2700 planets revolving around other suns relatively close to our earth, just think how many there must be in the whole universe. 250,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy alone, 250,000,000,000 more galaxies out there. I think life is almost everywhere….some of it may even be sentient.
link please

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#80113 Mar 9, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're going to pick on a typo to prove that you understand English? Why don't you state a real argument on the subject instead of spell-checking? It makes zero sense because you do not understand it.
Not what I said, and that wasn't a typo, that was the wrong word used in the wrong way, and it was included in a post where you stated that I didn't understand "basic English," thus making you a hypocrite.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#80114 Mar 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Not what I said, and that wasn't a typo, that was the wrong word used in the wrong way, and it was included in a post where you stated that I didn't understand "basic English," thus making you a hypocrite.
Now you can't discuss the real issue. It was a typo. I know that it should've been THERE as in a pronoun. comprende?
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#80115 Mar 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If the chihuahua is 40 pounds, it's not a chihuahua. Chihuahuas are a particular species of canine bred to be small, through a method of genetic manipulation called selective breeding. When they say that a species is incompatible, they are not talking about "the thingy doesn't fit," the genes themselves cannot produce viable offspring through natural reproduction, that's what it means. Please learn some actual science, or at least learn what science is, before you continue making a total fool of yourself.
Sigh... First, the only thing that genetically separates the common breed Chihuahua and it's ancestor of 40 lbs is the size requirements placed on it by breeding clubs. Outside of that, they are exactly the same dogs. As for the incompatibility, it's not about the the thingy doesn't fit," although the mechanics of it might be interesting to watch for a laugh or two, it is about the carrying the little to birth. There is nothing genetically stopping them from interbreeding outside of the physical abilities of a Chihuahua or pups to survive the process to birth which is only in place because of artificial conditions placed on them by humans. Now, to illustrate how silly this claim of natural process is, a mexican woman who was born barren and unable to have children and a white male who was born sterile suffering the same, would not be considered separate species because they lack the ability to naturally reproduce. Likewise, lab rats manipulates genetically and cannot reproduce with normal rats are not considered another species.

As for learning science, I probably know more about science then you think you do. I certainly can tell from your other posts that you haven't set the bar too high. Perhaps that is why you attempt to ad hominen attack people with little effect. Now, if you could brush up on your reading comprehension a bit and reread my comments before replying, lots of aggravation for both of us can be avoided.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80116 Mar 9, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>lol.. If you were half as clued in as you pretend to be, I wouldn't have to cite my posts. You might still not agree with it but you certainly wouldn't call it idiotic.
You use sites that exist for the sole purpose of confirmation bias else you would know what I was talking about. Those sites are created by Atheists with the intent of doing the very unscientific thing of discrediting Creation and creationist. You are a tool for a fools end and need to sit in the corner with the creationists. Put your dunce cap on and sit there quietly until you can come back informed and something intelligent to add.
No, wrong.

The creation fantasy was debunked long before Darwin came around. The sites I use, and articles as well, are simply based upon science.

Your silly belief in creation is about the same as the belief that the Sun goes around the Earth, or that the Earth is flat for that matter. The Bible says that the Earth is flat many more times than it refers to Adam and Eve. Yet creationists tend not to believe that the Earth is flat or in a geocentric universe.

Can anyone explain that?

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 20,270
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Chimney1 45,557
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr Dogen 152,219
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sep 25 Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sep 24 One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sep 24 One way or another 4
News A better theory of intelligent design Sep 23 Chazofsaints 21
More from around the web