Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
76,141 - 76,160 of 114,729 Comments Last updated 5 min ago
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80738
Mar 14, 2013
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey! wait a minute you lying co*ksucker, you've been saying for months that ..life is simply chemistry, now its tricky to define, get your lies in order.
Unlike you, I haven't lied. You may disagree with my posts, but that is something quite different. Yes, life is chemistry. There are other things which are also chemistry byt we don't call them life. Then there are other things which are chemistry and we can't decide on whether or not to call them life or not (such as bacteria and viruses etc). This is because life is an arbitrary label that we apply to real things. The problem is that reality simply does not fit into nice neat little pigeon holes for our convenience. Very much like a colour gradient. There is no definitive line of when the colour changes from red to orange. It's all a blur. The same thing applies to real phenomena in real life. Planets are another example, which is why they recently changed the definition of the word. Just because arbitrary labels may require a change every now and then does not mean there is something wrong with our current knowledge. It just means we are using labels to describe things a little better.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80739
Mar 14, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I know they exist...you ask for physical evidence of a non physical reality. Quite absurd.
Oh, I agree it's absurd. And you claim to have evidence which is not physical. Which is also absurd. Ain't my fault your position's absurd.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80740
Mar 14, 2013
 
THOR wrote:
<quoted text>
There is only one. For one.
Like Highlander!

If only. That would have been a great way for that idiot Benny to go, eh?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80741
Mar 14, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
"evidence","res ults", "tests"...these are scientific terms that apply to the physical world....not the metaphysical.
The "evidence" of the metaphysical world comes not by way of logical assessment, but by direct experience.
You are correct, that IS illogical.

Christians claim to have metaphysical experiences of angels.

Muslims claim to have metaphysical experiences of Allah.

Hindus claim to have metaphysical experiences of Vishnu.

UFO nuts claim to have metaphysical experiences of aliens.

Each and every one of these claims is just as valid as each other. NONE have evidence. They can't all be right. Meaning you have a lot of gullible idiots deluding themselves or are just plain liars.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80742
Mar 14, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So if scientists are always making corrections on scientific data for evolution, then how can you say the theory is based on facts? Don't worry, more questions will come from me and when you can provide real evidence for it, then it will be real science. But until you can keep trying...lol.
It's based on facts because so far there have been no facts presented that falsify it. Plus the fact that it's capable of making successful scientific predictions. I don't need to try, I've already presented evidence for evolution - and not even ONE of you fundies have been able to address it yet. Your only prayer is "Well maybe one day...!"
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80743
Mar 14, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the contrary, you don't have know that fire is hot through logical rational.You KNOW it hot instantly, without doubt, without question.
This is ridiculously incorrect. You know something is hot ONLY by one of two things -

1 - Taking someone's word for it

2 - Testing it yourself.

Most of us find out for sure via option 2 when we are very very young.

Then fundies apparently forget this in later life, otherwise they wouldn't say such stupid things.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80744
Mar 14, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
and that is exactly right...like I said before, science is ideologically lame, when it comes to truth.
Bingo. That's because science deals with facts and evidence, not "truth". Science makes no ideological claims. "Truth" is subjective and therefore meaningless in science. Which is why every religion lays claim to it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80745
Mar 14, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
"The only source of knowledge is experience."
-Albert Einstein
Ah, but knowledge is not the only source of experience.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80746
Mar 14, 2013
 
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you to DEFINE, not DESCRIBE sentience, there is a subtle difference. You descibed it simply. Defining it is almost impossible.
And I just explained that to Bo. The reason for this is that definitions are arbitrary, and constantly change over time.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80747
Mar 14, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
Anyone want to explain why lizards switching birth from egg to live young as evolution?
Evolution IS the explanation.
Cybele wrote:
I'm talking about the skinks species, a type of Australian lizard, those that live in higher, colder mountains giving birth to live young. And that nourishment in the mother's young play a role in this. Scientists claim that this is evolution in action.
Let's say this could be the holy grail for evolution. Alright.
Or let's not. The closest thing to "holy grail" was DNA, which firmly established evolution WAY back in the fifties. But since fundies are still arguing from a couple of centuries behind they're a little out of date. Another could be called ERV's.
Cybele wrote:
But what about other species of lizards such as the desert night lizards that also give birth to live young?
Lizards are special animals. Take for example the Komodo dragon that was dubbed to have virgin birth or immaculate conception. That is, no male needed to fertilize the egg.
You see, just because a certain type of animal has the flexibility to adapt in so many ways doesn't necessarily mean they are evolving into another species. Unless anyone have evidence that this is a process of speciation.
We have evidence, in the form of monotremes. They are an evolutionary relic from the days when reptiles led to monotremes which led to mammals. That's why monotremes have characteristics of both.

The immaculate conception of certain species is not evidence of speciation since there is very little to instigate change in an organism which is essentially cloning itself. That's a limitation of genetic variation while sexual reproduction leads to genetic variation (unless you're into the whole Biblical in the family style). It's an adaptation to survive in single sex environments, but once they get to an area with both sexes evolution will continue again.
Cybele wrote:
That lizard that can regenerate its tail for instance, that's not evolution.
Bingo. Because individuals don't evolve. Populations do. If a lizard with no tail has kids those kids WILL have tails.
Cybele wrote:
They just have that unique trait. And perhaps all lizards have their own unique and special traits.
Of course they do. That's why they're called different species or subspecies.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80748
Mar 14, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA. That's all it is. Lizards have a unique DNA.
All organisms have unique DNA. Even identical twins have a few mutations different. And DNA changes with each subsequent generation.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80749
Mar 14, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Only one type of lizard's genome was sequenced completely as what they claim, the green anole lizard. Funny how scientists claim our junk DNA have these transposons of our DNA that happen to be found in this particular lizard. So now we have common history with green lizards. LOL!
Evolution never ceases to amuse me. ;-)
Yes, all organisms have a certain amount of shared genetic material. It's evolution which predicts the pattern. That's nested hierarchy. Which is consistent across homology, the fossil record AND DNA. You will also find that there will be a certain amount of genetic drift within those transposons which also match nested hierarchies.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80750
Mar 14, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Was this realistic conversation?
Not once you joined it.

Now, you WILL serve your master!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80751
Mar 14, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not debunking evolution. I'm asking for evidence or explanation. Because when you put two and two together, the theory falls apart. But then you know there's a truth in everything. Read between the lines.
The theory hasn't fallen apart yet. Your idea of evolution may have fallen apart but that's because you have no idea what it is. Science is validated or invalidated by scientists, not ignorant people who have never learned anything about the subject. Reality does not care what you believe. It simply is.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80752
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Happy Pi Day everyone!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80753
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Not once you joined it.
Now, you WILL serve your master!
i have no master. i am a free human.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80755
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution IS the explanation.
<quoted text>
Or let's not. The closest thing to "holy grail" was DNA, which firmly established evolution WAY back in the fifties. But since fundies are still arguing from a couple of centuries behind they're a little out of date. Another could be called ERV's.
So similarities in genetic code is evidence for evolution? That logic fails when you take into account the similarities in DNA of a plant and an organism such as bananas and the human DNA. You might be able to trace back your lineage from a species of tree, so you might be right. lol
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
We have evidence, in the form of monotremes. They are an evolutionary relic from the days when reptiles led to monotremes which led to mammals. That's why monotremes have characteristics of both.
Monotreme? Are you insulting me? lol. How do you know that animal is a product of evolution as oppose to something that filled the niche in the order of nature like intercalation? Do you know the concept of permutation? Do you see how that would apply to genetics?
The Dude wrote:
The immaculate conception of certain species is not evidence of speciation since there is very little to instigate change in an organism which is essentially cloning itself. That's a limitation of genetic variation while sexual reproduction leads to genetic variation (unless you're into the whole Biblical in the family style). It's an adaptation to survive in single sex environments, but once they get to an area with both sexes evolution will continue again.
You are wrong about the komodo dragon that gave virgin birth. This self-cloning animal somehow had the ability to reproduce asexually and then only giving birth to male young and then mates with the young to reproduce again, as what they claim. It's a distinct trait as lizards have very unique genetic traits.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingo. Because individuals don't evolve. Populations do. If a lizard with no tail has kids those kids WILL have tails.
<quoted text>
When did I say that only one individual lizard had this ability to regenerate its tail?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80756
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, all organisms have a certain amount of shared genetic material. It's evolution which predicts the pattern. That's nested hierarchy. Which is consistent across homology, the fossil record AND DNA. You will also find that there will be a certain amount of genetic drift within those transposons which also match nested hierarchies.
So homology is evidence for evolution? Do you know how animal camouflage works? You call that evolution? lol

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80757
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So similarities in genetic code is evidence for evolution? That logic fails when you take into account the similarities in DNA of a plant and an organism such as bananas and the human DNA. You might be able to trace back your lineage from a species of tree, so you might be right. lol
You are really thinking in a limited fashion. No, it's stronger evidence for the theory of evolution, even stronger evidence of speciation as a result of evolution. For one thing, it's exactly what we would see if everything was related in some way.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80758
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So homology is evidence for evolution? Do you know how animal camouflage works? You call that evolution? lol
Wht type of camouflage? there are many types. Some are as simple as looking like the habitat you inhabit and some are as complex as the cuttle fish and octopuses...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••