Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222031 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.

Janitor

Vancouver, WA

#104587 Nov 4, 2013
Benny wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. Charles Darwin was a racist. There's no prove that all life arose from one common ancestor. I am not surprised that the evolutionist theories are collapsing. Atheist science defend Darwinism like a religion. What a big fraud! One Hoax after another. They are so quick to announce their fake evolution discoveries, but they are not so quick to expose their mistakes and disproven conjectures.
Darwin was a racist? Would you provide proof, or even evidence to that summation? By the way, there are many schools of thinking in evolution and many of today's educated theologians are not nearly so quick to dismiss them as fraudulent, though fraudulent would be putting more into the idea than was ever meant to be presented by those who promoted it.

You could argue that theories imposed for centuries based on biblical interpretation were as well, frauds, if that were the case for those who expounded so freely on them. After all, most authorities for centuries concluded that the planet was flat, that is was fixed into a celestial sphere, surrounded by the other bodies in the sky and that the Earth was the center of the universe. Disease was thought to retribution from God for sin and prayer offered as the soul means of dealing with it. All these things changed as man's knowledge of the sciences and medicine evolved.
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

#104588 Nov 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And as already been pointed out, evolution makes no theological claims. Since we have pointed this out to you almost every time you've popped up here, the only possible conclusion can be that you're just another liar for Jesus.
<quoted text>
And yet amazingly, the ONLY people who are aware of this are "good Christians", since the scientific community is blissfully unaware of it.
So what "scientific alternative" do you propose? That's it - Goddidit with magic!
This is why no-one takes you seriously.
True followers of Jesus do not need to lie for him. He never concerned himself with evolution in the first place, just as he didn't in many other areas of confrontation between science and religion. People just like to promote their own ideas in the manner of substantiating them through the fall back to Jesus as the sole arbitrator. What a lot of zealots don't seem to recall is that fact that many scientists are Christians and through out history, have been. the originator of the big bang theory and the discovery of the genode were both Christians. One doesn't have to relinquish their belief in Jesus to follow a scientific hypothesis to it's final conclusion.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104589 Nov 4, 2013
SBT wrote:
So I offered a technically accurate explanation relative to the complexity of the flagella proton powered motor, no one soul here has offered any rebuttal to counter my conclusions
That's because there was nothing to rebut.

After all you provided zero mechanisms, zero evidence, zero explanations, zero ways of objectively measuring "complexity", zero hypotheses as to what that would even mean and why, zero rebuttals to stuff we pointed out to you weeks ago.

Just saying "flagella proton motor" and coupling it with lots of technical-sounding engineering terms with zero context is merely a fantastic way of demonstrating that you're bullshitting without the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. You'd probably make a good script-help for Star Trek when they need to come up with big words to explain pseudo-scientific sci-fi stuff.
SBT wrote:
that that tiny little device is unparraleled in design and complexity and so far all all have got is attacks, no science no technical refutation
Of what? Your baseless assertions? Show us how it is designed. Tell us how to measure its complexity.
SBT wrote:
no quotes, nothing just, "Oh that was solved long ago", "that doesnt matter" etc. etc.. Problem is with you folks is that you have no understantding at all about what the definition of terms are no more than the ability to refute a thing I stated.
We don't have any understanding of the terms in the way you're using them because YOU don't have any either.

If you did you would have explained it by now.

You can't.
SBT wrote:
The unit is irrefutably complex and all mans efforts to figure out how it works fall short,
Sure, it's complex. So what? If you look at any explanations in regards to protein functions or how the flagella operates you will find it under the banner of biology, not theology.
SBT wrote:
God is laughing at you all over this.
Sez the guy who keeps limiting God.
SBT wrote:
He put it there on purpose, it was there all along for this time, so I will put it on a simple platter for for you. Its an engine that run's on Protons, its organized like no engine on earth, it runs on energy we don't understand, it spins on bushings, it has a stator and a rotor that use magnetic energy fields to create thrust within the physics laws identified by Faraday, furthered by Tesla, but it mocks Tesla's AC motor, as it can vari in speed and reverse like a dc motor but runs on AC motor principals and parts, and uses an infinitely small control mechanism that schools the best PLC units (i work with them)in the world which we don't understand and synchronizes like multiple 747 engines in another layer we also don't understand.
So it runs LIKE an engine you don't understand. Therefore you understand it is an engine that was designed.

Oh, and a swimming tail works nothing like a 747 jet for the record.
SBT wrote:
When you answer these questions come back, then please explain why the DNA and cell mechanism have not evolved in your 4 billion years and operated in mindless parallel to your notion of common decent and increasing complexity, changeless in all that time!
Actually if you had taken a look at genetics or the fossil record you would see that these things HAVE evolved a fair bit over near 4 billion years. Not that you'd notice.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104590 Nov 4, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Like my post above, please give me refutation on physics, definitions, operating principals, electrical formulas, quotes from links about the evolutionary development of the axial proton flagella engine and I will look it over, anything but more lectures about how I am so in error. Thanks.
You're lying again. You've never looked anything over the first few million times, you ain't about to start now.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104591 Nov 4, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I read that one way back, summarized as follows, we have a substrate, then a diode, then a transistor, then an IC, then a computer with out intelligence then presto we obviously have a proton powered motor for our tiny little bacteria. Common decent evolutionary Nano-homology style at its worst. No reconciliation of the convergent and complex information required to make these jumps, and as all these part and party life forms live at the same time today, the notion of evo common decent theory falls again. Its a cut and tape job and a decade behind the times. I give you credit for an answer, better than the rest here. Try the Yale paper,he touches on origin's in his summary. I really doubt he and Berg at Harvard would debate this but I will see if they will say anything to me about it.. Thanks.
So dazzle us with your fantabulous rebuttal.

.

.

What, that was IT?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104592 Nov 4, 2013
SBT wrote:
Firing those 11 stator coils in the HS flagella model to make 100,000 rpm in perfect timing order and pw, lets do the math here...that's 1.1mil pulses/sec. If anything goes south at that speed... Pretty sharp time God if you ask me...Must use synthetic Havoline..., STP just wouldn't do... And the clearances, must be pretty good! The French have an engine that spins @60,000, they tried a counter shaft for a relative rpm of over 120,000 and had to give up, 60K was it, the Lord schooled them too..
So what you're saying is that it's nothing like one of our engines? Well done.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104593 Nov 4, 2013
replaytime wrote:
SBT and Sub. About the two articles.
SBTs Yale article link - Authored by;
Robert M. Macnab
Yale University
Publications: 70 | Citations: 1820
Fields: Microbiology, Biochemistry,and Molecular Biology
Collaborated with 72 co-authors from 1981 to 2006 Cited by 2570 authors
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author...
Subs talkorigins link - Authored by;
Nicholas J. Matzke
University of California Berkeley
Publications: 2 | Citations: 9
Fields: Education
Collaborated with 1 co-author from 2007 to 2010 | Cited by 18 authors
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author...
The credentials of the authors speak for their selves. Plus if you look you will see both used many of the same people/publications for references in their article.
So you're saying that SBT is a better and more educated source?

Even though it's quite clear that he's clueless?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104594 Nov 4, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is that evolution must make sense, the proton motor proves evolution doesn't make any sense. To be scientific, the whole of the matter must fit;The DNA and it's source, the convergent design, the connections, the function, the masterly design that confounds us all technically. And yes, I have worked in several fields, of late electronics for things that actually work and are fairly complex to achieve things we needed in mining, so it turned into a company, a few patents, soon wondering back to another field from my youth in semi-retirement. I used the word "try" to contact, most don't want to touch the matter due to publicity. The motor researchers are crossing into electronic engineering, a thing I know and they don't really get when you read the lit, they have these complex chemical terms but don't get how hard we have to work to get things to work like this.
It doesn't make sense to you because there's not enough Godmagic in it. But I'm sure you make use of Godmagic every day in your car repair shop.

You still suck at biology though.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104595 Nov 4, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you say it doesn't matter. OK.
Nothing matters to you. You're a fundie. That's why you have no problem lying in front of God and evidence is irrelevant.

All I wanna know is how you managed to tell God what He could and what He couldn't do.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104596 Nov 4, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Coming soon ! I'll explain how beef stew emerged through natural processes alone without any intelligent design.
That's a moo point.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104597 Nov 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutionary researchers are looking for alien stew these days, it seems. You may be interested in this research below, if you haven't seen it already.
Evolution predicts that the fundamental molecular processes within the cell, that perform functions common to all life, are conserved and originate from a common ancestor.
Initially it appeared that this prediction was confirmed. However recent research surprisingly confirms that the protein sequences of several central components of the DNA replication machinery, above all the principal replicative polymerases, show very little or no sequence similarity between bacteria and archaea/eukaryotes.
Here is published research that seriously challenges the credibility of the current evolutionary paradigm and supports a creationist paradigm and predictions.
"Epistemological issues in the study of microbial life: alternative terran biospheres?"
Abstract
The assumption that all life on Earth today shares the same basic molecular architecture and biochemistry is part of the paradigm of modern biology. This paper argues that there is little theoretical or empirical support for this widely held assumption.
..... Significantly, the most powerful molecular biology techniques available-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of rRNA genes augmented by metagenomic analysis-could not detect such microbes if they existed. Given the profound philosophical and scientific importance that such a discovery would represent, a dedicated search for 'shadow microbes'(heretofore unrecognized 'alien' forms of terran microbial life) seems in order.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053938
Here above we see evolutionary researchers inadvertently supporting creationists predictions and claims in principle, while falsifying the current evolutionary paradigm..THERE ARE NO COMMON ANCESTORS BETWEEN MAN AND MICROBE.
Nope. Sorry, not seeing how invisible Jewmagic predicted this one. Or in fact how evolution has been utterly falsified by it.

Of course you're very good at finding peer-reviewed scientific papers which apparently support conclusions which would surprise the researchers who published it.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#104598 Nov 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientist accept 4 dimensions , and some surmise more but accept more? Only if there can be demonstrated there is more.
There is no evidence of a creator to falsify.
Falsify the Copernican principle? Have you gone bananas?
We are in a Goldilocks zone, that's how we describe a specific set of criteria , without spelling it out.
Don't you just love scientific terminology????. And yet, not a shred of evidence for the same 'Goldilocks' luck with address and a plethora of systems required to sustain life, found anywhere. What do you suppose OBSERVATION refers to as opposed to speculation?.

You are the one having a 'DER' moment holding hands with atheist scientists!
You are just choc full of disdain for science and have thrown in the towel at the mere sight of the vast ocean we have to explore.
Here's a couple dollar's , got get ya a ice cream cone and go inside where it's safe. You can build a tent with your covers, that way the boogyman wont get you.
Actually it is you that have replaced observation with boogeymen called algorithmic magic based on a philosophy called the Copernican principle, and call that science.

You do realize don't you, that what is OBSERVED by scientists, is that, the earth is special? That is one evidence for a special creation that beggs a creative intelligence. That is the same evidence atheists have hand waved away with assumptions.

It is actually you that hide under blankets with your philosophy, thinking the truth is a boogeyman.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104599 Nov 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
...and now it appears life's various motors may have originated off world.
"Given the profound philosophical and scientific importance that such a discovery would represent, a dedicated search for 'shadow microbes'(heretofore unrecognized 'alien' forms of terran microbial life) seems in order."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053938
Except their proposal involved looking for organisms which were difficult to classify as biological and non-biological, with the suggestion that they may possibly be 'extra-terrestrial'. This alone isn't enough to remove them from common ancestry altogether, and further doesn't address the fact that even IF they were correct there's no reason to presume their appearance on Earth in any way affected the evolution of life altogether.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104600 Nov 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed the evolutionary paradigm of a single cell evolving has long changed. Models based on HGT/LGT now conclude that there were multiple 'primitive cells' that swapped DNA.
IOW, evolutionary researchers do not know but need to tie all life together somehow.
What the research brings home to me is that genomic similarity is not 'proof' of common ancestry. Following evolutionary reasoning then multiple form of primitive 'life' that arose independently were so genetically similar that they were able to interact genomically with each other, LGT.
It appears by evolutionists own reasoning life can arise independently and be genomically similar.
And a reminder of what you were told years ago - the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. This is an abiogenesis problem.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104601 Nov 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Many researchers suggest life originated elsewhere, and that is how these building blocks came to earth.
The article supports multigenesis on the earth. The article itself also suggests there are philosophical implications to the research.
Evolutionary theory itself already proposes mulitgenesis and gene swapping to account for current genomic comparative findings. IOW, both current evolutionary reasonings and the research presented indicates that all life that arises is genomically similar and compatable and this does not 'prove' common ancestry, at all.
The chimp genome is not similar to mankind because they are related by common ancestry. The chimp genome is actually nothing like the human genome, despite some similarity. Multiplications, rearrangements, deletions etc, etc, actually mean they are only similar if one ignores the differences and assumes the ancestry.
Despite SOME similarity, for example it being the species with the closest similarity. But then ancestry is still not assumed due to the evidence.

I see you're still trotting out that lie again. Reality will not change because you believe it to be different.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104602 Nov 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll tell you the important thing the article did say, and perhaps you'd like to refute that.
"The assumption that all life on Earth today shares the same basic molecular architecture and biochemistry is part of the paradigm of modern biology. This paper argues that there is little theoretical or empirical support for this widely held assumption."
Different machinery, different genesis, no common ancestor = support for a creationist paradigm, regardless of your liking it or not.
It appears TOE doesn't have a paradigm and gets to make it up as it goes along. Hence TOE is a theory in evolution itself and has no predictive ability.
Sure. Except for its predictive ability:

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

Now go and find us a chimp born with the genome of a cactus then we can talk.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#104603 Nov 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Sorry, not seeing how invisible Jewmagic predicted this one. Or in fact how evolution has been utterly falsified by it.
Of course you're very good at finding peer-reviewed scientific papers which apparently support conclusions which would surprise the researchers who published it.
Even all the researchers that have ever published anything on prebiotic cells have no clue why their hypothesis can NEVER be replicated in the lab. BOO HOO!

'Goldilocks did it' is falsified with every lab failure whilst 'God did it' is further validated.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104604 Nov 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
One identifying feature of an evolutionists argument is they eventually plead to the whole of TOE when any single point falls apart. TOE is built on the sum of its parts comprising of many straw men.
Every single one of your hiccups also falls apart. eg researchers see fragments they align themselves with comparative modeling and means little as per current discussion, JUNK DNA/ERVS has been virtually falsified in line with creationist predictions of a fully functional genome
Except you're lying again. Oh, and contradicting yourself at the same time.

ERV's aren't junk, but they are remnants of evolutionary markers which you can only ignore, not refute. And if the genome is "fully functional" as you say it is then you have another problem in the fact that every single person on Earth (there's over 7 billion of them by the way) is born with mutations. This unfortunately leaves you with the little quandary that your highly racist little proposal has no idea what the "original" genome looked like and what all its functions are, and the fact mutations exist can only mean that what you would term "junk DNA" DOES exist. You can't decry junk DNA and claim "100% function at the same time.

Well, at least not without being a typical dishonest little hypocrite of a creationist at any rate.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
the suggestion of vestigial organs is also being falsified after evos themselves had to change the meaning of what vestigial actually meant, punctuated equilibrium is what you found in the fossil record and the falsification of human knucklewalking ancestry on the back of one single fossil, that is what you've found. Research on the genetic clock and mutation rates are all over the place.
"The assumption that all life on Earth today shares the same basic molecular architecture and biochemistry is part of the paradigm of modern biology. This paper argues that there is little theoretical or empirical support for this widely held assumption."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053938
Again I tell you, by evolutionary researchers own reasoning and research, there is no substantive evidence available to conclude that genomnic similarity indicates common ancestry. It is an evolutionary assumption, that appears to have been falsified.
Only if you deny reality and pretend evolutionary biologists are saying the complete opposite of what they're saying.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104605 Nov 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's replay this..
"The assumption that all life on Earth today shares the same basic molecular architecture and biochemistry is part of the paradigm of modern biology. This paper argues that there is little theoretical or empirical support for this widely held assumption."
IOW
There is little to NO support that all life today shares the same basic molecular architecture.
Now look at this...
"Researchers are finding that on top of the 1% distinction, chunks of missing DNA, extra genes, altered connections in gene networks, and the very structure of chromosomes confound any quantification
of “humanness” versus “chimpness.”“There isn’t one single way to express the genetic distance between two complicated living
organisms,” Gagneux adds."
http://watchmenservices.info/New%20Folder/Hum...
IOW, there are huge differences between human and chimp DNA. Obvious differences between discontinuous families/groups are predicted by a creationist paradigm and conrinue to be validated. Researchers can only assume all these differences evolved.
Sorry, but we don't take reality-denying fundie preaching sites very seriously. Especially when evidence has no meaning to their position.

Or yours for that matter.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104606 Nov 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Even all the researchers that have ever published anything on prebiotic cells have no clue why their hypothesis can NEVER be replicated in the lab. BOO HOO!
'Goldilocks did it' is falsified with every lab failure whilst 'God did it' is further validated.
You just made a claim. What is your evidence that scientists have no idea how abiogenesis worked? There are some that would disagree with you quite vehemently.

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 Rose_NoHo 32,286
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr 15th Dalai Lama 77,078
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 3 hr John 888
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr Dogen 162,515
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Tue Dogen 4,321
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Jul 24 The FACTory 101
A musical evolution lesson. Jul 24 Willy 8
More from around the web