Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221214 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.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83708 Mar 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I'll bite. How so?
Several places in history are completely out of sync with the accepted view of the intellectual and societal disposition of the proposed "evolution" of humans. I don't think ALL the evidence is being objectively considered, and is causing considerable difficulty in the formation of discovery of a proper timeline of evolution and involved factors...mostly because of control of the "funding" for research, and the need to be accepted academically, even knowing that the information and methods are in error.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83709 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> You know...you have not once shown any examples of proof of actuality for anything you have made claim of.
You know what that says about you?
Hot air.
Actually what he claimed was correct. Here it is for the hundredth time (or so):

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83710 Mar 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea I know, and Columbus discovered America.lol
That would certainly surprise the Americans who had been living there for longer than the fundies say the universe has existed.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83711 Mar 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>and the hares and other animals that change their fur color????
Follows the same logic...don't you think?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#83712 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Several places in history are completely out of sync with the accepted view of the intellectual and societal disposition of the proposed "evolution" of humans. I don't think ALL the evidence is being objectively considered, and is causing considerable difficulty in the formation of discovery of a proper timeline of evolution and involved factors...mostly because of control of the "funding" for research, and the need to be accepted academically, even knowing that the information and methods are in error.
What are these places in history...please be specific..
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83713 Mar 29, 2013
Mark wrote:
At the core, I can see that the word "Design" doesn't work for you.
That's because it doesn't work. If it DID work you could explain exactly who or what did the designing, when it did it, where it did it and what the heck exactly it did.
Mark wrote:
When it's pointed out that basics like moon gravity, distance and mass are vital and you say it doesn’t matter because -"Size is irrelevant". A few more feet of tide and most of our crop bearing soil would be gone. That's simple geography but to you it's "irrelevant"!
Why yes, it IS irrelevant. Since life has been around FAR longer than harvesting.

Duh.
Mark wrote:
Have worked with a number of oil companies (still do) and never saw one worried about isotope dating. They use seismic equipment and well logs. Never heard of an archaeologist using long age nuc dating as they deal with the existence of man, which is way inside the usable range of isotope dating, they use C14. So you're not making any sense to me, other then showing me how little you know about the stuff you are posting about.
Of course, that's because all your personal anecdotes render literally hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed literature moot. Because you are THAT important.
Mark wrote:
You can blame Jesus all you want. The fact that you refer to scientists you have never met as "liars" is also telling. I know these guys personally and there are no "liars for Jesus" among them. They all have made a real living in the real world with their brains and hard work outside the creation effort, so you may want to spare me your unfounded comments. Thats harsh but true.
I don't care if you personally met Jesus Himself. The RATE group are liars for Jesus, period. That's why they have no scientific credibility. And that's WHY the ONE thing they got right was the part where they OPENLY ADMIT ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE that they couldn't give a frak about science.

In the meantime you're still here doing the exact same thing (lying for Jesus) and have yet to address the fact that evidence is utterly superfluous to your position. Or indeed been able to explain the "scientific theory" of creationism. In the meantime we'll surely look forward to yet another irrelevant personal anecdote as if it means a damm.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83714 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
My statement was not to expain speciation, it was to show you that the biological species concept is fixed.
Just as the astronomical planet concept is fixed.

Sorry, I mean was.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83715 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! I'm doing fine, I see you haven't lost your sense of humor. How you been doing?
Groovy.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#83716 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Follows the same logic...don't you think?
the logic of evolution, yes. your theory mentioned favoring animals with light colored fur...(evolution) and ones that can molt or change their color s the seasons change would also support the fittest for survival passing on their genes...(evolution)

any questions?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83717 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Ring secies does not disprove the biological species term. We just have conflicting views of what a species is.
I worry little about the fundie opinions of arbitrary labels. The fact is they demonstrate biological divergence as predicted by evolution.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83718 Mar 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
42? Where ARE you getting your information?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...
From a paper 2 years more recent than yours.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#83719 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Several places in history are completely out of sync with the accepted view of the intellectual and societal disposition of the proposed "evolution" of humans. I don't think ALL the evidence is being objectively considered, and is causing considerable difficulty in the formation of discovery of a proper timeline of evolution and involved factors...mostly because of control of the "funding" for research, and the need to be accepted academically, even knowing that the information and methods are in error.
You're full of crap.

What fundie site do you get your crappy error ridden data from??
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83720 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
You're delusinal by saying I have zero evidence. I did not assume design. The fixed biological species concepts is the evidence for the origin of species. It eliminates species giving birth to new species oover time thru natural processes. Now apply deductive logic to the ONLY two possible explanations for the origin of species. Hence, the name of this subject article (evolution vs creation) is the ONLY possible explanations to the origin of species.
You are incorrect. There is evolution, creationism, or an as yet unknown third option that no-one's thought of yet. So what we see is merely yourself setting creationism up as the default answer should evolution happen to be wrong.

THAT is why you have no evidence.
Infinite Force wrote:
Once again, fixed biological species logically deducts/elliminates the descent of a new species originating from the same species which evoution proposes. The conclusion based on scientific evidence (fixed biological species term) and deductive reasoning is creation for the origin of species. I doubt you will understand this because you don't even have a sound definition for species.
Neither do you. But what IS observed is that life changes over time. The ONLY thing that would prevent this would be if the Earth was say, oh, only 6,000 years old. And since it ISN'T...
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#83721 Mar 29, 2013
Ah, 3:30 Central USA time, about 8:00 in the evening England time.

The Dude is home from work, has had dinner, and sits down at his computer for a pleasant evening of swatting Christian creationist kooks!:)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83722 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction: three possible explanations to the origin of species in accordance to the stratta/fossil and biological species.
1. creation.
2. biological species given rise to new species (evolution).
3. spontaneous generation to ALL known different biologica species found on earth today and in the strata/fossil record.
Only possible answers to the origin of species!
Incorrect.

4.- Currently unknown.

However this post does not address mine, which is that common design has no evidence nor makes any testable predictions.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83723 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
You are observing a fixed biological species with variation over time and that's it. The biolical species will ALWAYS remain the same. This fixed species concept follows the constant principle found in the laws of nature. You do know the laws of nature is fixed and universal don't you? Proposing an un-fixed concept violates these principles found in the laws of nature. Thought you should know this.
The orbit of Mercury breaks the "law of gravity". Thought you should know this.

This is why I don't take your "principles found in the 'laws' of nature" claims very seriously.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83724 Mar 29, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Well according to your previous posts on this thread, there are evidence for evolution that have been tested repeatedly, so what happens when a mutant species reproduce?
They grow up and reproduce themselves too.

You ARE born with over 100 mutations that neither of your parents have. Just because you posted a linky pointing to mutations that cause infertility does not mean ALL mutations cause infertility.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#83725 Mar 29, 2013
Gillette wrote:
Ah, 3:30 Central USA time, about 8:00 in the evening England time.
The Dude is home from work, has had dinner, and sits down at his computer for a pleasant evening of swatting Christian creationist kooks!:)
Simply smashing job...ol' boy!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83726 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, the bird ring species was not observed diversifying from one to two are more species which formed your so called ring species... YOU ASSUME DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION AND ORIGIN OF DIFFERENT ring species. Once again, the creation of a ring species has not been observed by the biological species concept.
Ring species are *evidence* of descent with modification. This is reality. It is observed. What you are doing is moving back the goalposts to allow a "little bit" of evolution, but not too much that it violates your philosophical/theological beefs with reality.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83727 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction and my apologies for the mis-explanation. I mean when it comes to a biological reproductive species the laws of nature governs all of them the same with no exceptions. This means if the biological species concept applies to one then it applies to all biological reproductive species with no exception. You saying that the ring species disprove my biological species concept and now I want the evidence of a reproductive species starting as one species diversing into your ring species using the biological species concept. I don't want your similarity assumption species term, I want this proved through the same species term I am using. You cannot use a species term that is based on pure assumption to disqaulify my specoes term that is built on pure observation.
We don't HAVE to stick to your definitions, because your opinions are irrelevant. Not that you've even explained exactly what your definition of species is.(shrug)

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 37 min Subduction Zone 67,002
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr IB DaMann 28,546
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 1 hr Subduction Zone 218
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Genesis Enigma 160,913
What does the theory of evolution state? 2 hr Timmee 162
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 2 hr Timmee 111
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr 15th Dalai Lama 3,487
More from around the web