Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209984 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.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#105914 Nov 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are a self-licking ice cream cone ...aren't you?
You see it not just SZ and I...it's all the schools, all the educated people, half the Christians (the educated ones)
all of science, a large part of religion , all the data and SZ and I who realized evolution was a fact.
And then we have a splinter group of science denying
uneducated quasi-scientific, fruit loop fundytarded hillbilly, self licking ice-cream cone heads , that behave like a bunch of preschoolers throwing a tantrum because they no like the fact they're f-king apes. But proving they are by their idiotic responses to the fact.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uo6b31E2Rkc/UJNYf2d...
Oh so the great evolutionist is a clown that can post links to funnies and ridicule. The picture looks more like you sucking ice cream instead of talking science. Child! You say stupid things and when exposed then lean on spam. Top marks for revealing your credentials.

None of the results your research has presented aligns with evolutionary predictions. Both paradigms beg some predictions and expectations. Restictions within the genomes adaptive ability would be a self evident support from and creationist perspective, but not for an evolutionary paradigm. The very same data/results forces evolutionists to invent hypothesis/stories to explain the unexpected, DATA.

Self repair systems, majority deleterious mutations, huge odds against major sweeps with so called 'beneficial' mutations resulting in negative epistasis, differences in molecular machinery between man and ape, families of organisms suddenly appearing in the fossil record, is all very much what I would expect to find within the genome and fossil record, as science advances. Not so, for these evo scientists.

This data is all consistent with and supportive of a creationist paradigm and predictive capability and get evo researchers scratching around for excuses and stories to prop up TOE.

So keep sucking ice cream and posting spam because we creos understand that is pretty well all you have left to offer when all scientific data lets you down.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#105915 Nov 15, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
My French is a lot iffy but it appears to be better than chuckes English
What is your first language? French? Irish (real Gaelic Irish, not the Irish accented English) or are you going to keep me guessing?
Irish Gaelic. I grew up on one of the peninsulae in South-Western Ireland.

The language is still used for daily commerce down there.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105916 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What was all that long post, mostly deleted, meant to mean to me in relation to any claim I made. Nothing.
That's because no posts we make at all are relevant to you. Evidence is quite simply irrelevant to your position, period.
MazHere wrote:
Darwin was simplistic and Mendellian inheritance most certainly isn't the only form of inheritance. The article was only meant to demonstrate that your lab misrepresentations are not a demo of change above species level.
All research demonstrates the genome is not designed to adapt without limits. From majority deleterious mutations to so called benificial mutations coming together to cause negative epistasis. None of the data, even from flawed and biased assumptive modelling, supports an organisms ability to adapt for billions of years without extinction.
Your researchers keep getting unexpected surprises and having to invent any story/maybe to handwave away clear evidence for a creative paradigm.
Yeah, "clear" evidence that you can't even provide. But since evidence doesn't matter then that explains why. You can't accept that, but it is quite clear you already know this to be the case. Why else would you keep making the same stupid mistake over and over again for days on end?(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105917 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Stop trying to look as if you know what you are talking about. You post rubbish.
BONG!!!

Yep, that WAS you breaking a new irony meter.
MazHere wrote:
All research demonstrates the genome is not designed to adapt without limits.
Since this has already been addressed your baseless objections are as moot as your pointless religious opinions.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105918 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
What you see is scientists taking data and offering an assumption as a get out of a falsfication for free card.
That is why using your own evo research to slap you with is such fun. It is all flawed and biased rubbish and testimony to the prevailing bias. You lot throw tantrums when creationist research is posted. Evos continual begging the majority is like you burying your head in the sand. The only thing 'ALL' your scientists agree on is "IT ALL EVOLVED", which is no better than "GOD DID IT".
Just one slight problem with your claims - okay quite a few actually: we have evidence and mechanisms, you have zip. Our position is scientific, yours ain't. We don't have to lie, you do.

But hey, as a good Christian martyr you LOVE to be slapped around every day and we're happy to do it.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105919 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
None of the results your research has presented aligns with evolutionary predictions.
Come up with something better than SIFTER and we'll talk. Until then you will only talk crap.(shrug)

Have you uh, come up with a way to make creationism scientific yet? Thought not.

Since: Nov 13

Maple, Canada

#105920 Nov 15, 2013
I believe evolution is the "tool" that God uses to carry out his creation work.

I would go indepth but I have my reasons of believing in God, I personally think life would be pointless without his existence.

If you like my opinions please follow me on http://www.opinionoto.com/JordN

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105921 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What you see is scientists taking data and offering an assumption as a get out of a falsfication for free card.
That is why using your own evo research to slap you with is such fun. It is all flawed and biased rubbish and testimony to the prevailing bias. You lot throw tantrums when creationist research is posted. Evos continual begging the majority is like you burying your head in the sand. The only thing 'ALL' your scientists agree on is "IT ALL EVOLVED", which is no better than "GOD DID IT".
The 'majority' of scientists have been wrong many times. eg human knuckle walking ancestry, single celled LUCA, junk dna.
The point being this...
All research demonstrates the genome is not designed to adapt without limits. From majority deleterious mutations to so called beneficial mutations coming together to cause negative epistasis. None of the data, even from flawed and biased assumptive modelling, supports an organisms ability to adapt for billions of years without extinction.
I told you I have taken the point. Your asiding with every bit of nonsense you can come up with, like Aura, is a further demonstration that evolutionists are unable to support their zillions of claims that support the overarching theory of evolution, point by point.
Once again, no research supports your claims if it did you would be able to link it to this site. All you can do is to link articles that you do not understand.

Now try to think logically for a minute or two, who usually best knows the implications of their own research? Usually it is the researcher himself. Why do none of the researches that you ever link, from credible sources, say that they have found a problem with the theory of evolution.

Now let's look how scientific theories work. Once a hypothesis is well tested and found to have passed its tests by several independent scientists it is considered a theory. Theories are accepted as being conditionally true at this point. In other words they are considered true until somebody finds some serious evidence that they are wrong. The theory of evolution has been tested over 150 years and has never failed one major test. Scientists are very sure that it is mostly correct. Almost all theories can use some tweaking hear and there, so the fact that it is not quite perfect in no way debunks the theory. When a theory lasts as long as the ToE we can be very very sure that it is "right".

Now let's look at creation "science". We do not need to know how creation occurred to show that it happened. Just as we don't need to know all of the details of evolution to know that it happened. If creation happened someone should be able to come up with a theory explaining why we observe what we observe. Why do we see the fossil record the way that we see it? Why do we see nested hierarchies everywhere? It is up to the people who believe in an idea to come up with a hypothesis for their beliefs. To be a scientific hypothesis it must be testable. Creation "scientists" will not even develop a simple testable hypothesis. And you know the reason why. When they have done so in the past their ideas have been debunked in record time.

So if you want to debunk evolution you are going to have to try a lot harder than you have been. People trying to explain how evolution occurred are usually very very bad sources when you are trying to debunk their beliefs.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#105922 Nov 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Just one slight problem with your claims - okay quite a few actually: we have evidence and mechanisms, you have zip. Our position is scientific, yours ain't. We don't have to lie, you do.
But hey, as a good Christian martyr you LOVE to be slapped around every day and we're happy to do it.(shrug)
Too bad for you my claims actually reflect and are based on factual information I can present as opposed to you evolutionist turned to offering spamdung in your defence. LOL!

You lot have 150 years of spam and wasted paper in libraries.

I have your own data to slap you with.

Majority deleterious mutations, self repair systems, negative epistasis, huge differences in the Y chromosome even after hammering fragments of sequence together, molecular difference between man and ape, functioning dna with no useless dna, functioning organs with no functionless organs, families of organisms suddenly appearing in the fossil record, evidence animal life started in the sea; all supports creationists expectations and continues to validate creationists predictions. Evos then need to invent stories to explain the unexpected and unpredicted.

You and the best here cannot even present a decent argument to challenge the above claims, let alone falisfy any claim I have made. I have data and have presented much of it.

You have volumes of rubbish, 150 years of falsifications and wasted paper. So far you have presented zip from the flavour of the month support for the prevailing bias, you call evolutionary science.

“Proud Member”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#105923 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>

None of the results your research has presented aligns with evolutionary predictions. Both paradigms beg some predictions and expectations. Restictions within the genomes adaptive ability would be a self evident support from and creationist perspective, but not for an evolutionary paradigm..
Okay I'll give you a chance, explain how the modern whales came to be from a creationist hypothesis, and why there are an abundance of intermediate species between ancient land mammals and the whale over millions of years. Why would we think we see a morphology taking place when it isn't. Explain how this is creation and not evolution.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105924 Nov 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay I'll give you a chance, explain how the modern whales came to be from a creationist hypothesis, and why there are an abundance of intermediate species between ancient land mammals and the whale over millions of years. Why would we think we see a morphology taking place when it isn't. Explain how this is creation and not evolution.
Then let's move on to the horse.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#105925 Nov 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, no research supports your claims if it did you would be able to link it to this site. All you can do is to link articles that you do not understand.
Now try to think logically for a minute or two, who usually best
etc etc etc
People trying to explain how evolution occurred are usually very very bad sources when you are trying to debunk their beliefs.
Oh for heaven sake, will you just stay on topic instead of spin doctoring some weedly long post full of a million points.

What stupidity for starters saying TOE has never made a wrong prediction. There was a day that you evos shoved totally use less junk dna down creos throats as the supreme evidence of an evo prediction come to fruition. That claim is now in the process of being falsified in line with creationist predictions, with evos back tracking that TOE never made a prediction about non coding dna in the first place. You evos are a load of goal post moving liars only fooling yourselves!. The same goes for vestigial organs.

There is scientific research as evidence of majority deleterious mutations, negative epistasis, families of organisms appearing in the fossil record, huge differences between ape and man including a difference in molecular machinery etc etc etc.

Are you suggesting any claim above is a lie and based on any misrepresentaion of research? Remember, your research is nothing more than testimony to the prevailing bias. You can't separate data from the hypothesis made of the data. Typical evo!

Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/...

Most of these studies conclude that the mutation rate in humans today is roughly half the rate that has been used in many evolutionary studies since 2000, which would make genetic estimates of dates older than previously believed. The question now is how much older?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6104/18...

ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6099/11...

These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

That is just some of the data. The reason why deleterious mutations and negative epistasis do not send any species extinct is unknown and only assumptions are offered based on flawed and biased research and a belief in TOE. You cannot refute that, you can only spam and throw tantrums. Hence, not one shred of any support for TOE has any credibility.

So these big long posts of yours full of your opinion are a huge waste of everyones time.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105926 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh for heaven sake, will you just stay on topic instead of spin doctoring some weedly long post full of a million points.
What stupidity for starters saying TOE has never made a wrong prediction.
Maz, did I say that? I don't think so. I said that evolution has never failed a major test. Getting a minor prediction wrong is not failing a major test.

Try again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105927 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
<snip of unsupported rant of Maz flapping her nasty blue Waffle again.>
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/...
Maz, we already have explained how this dubious study does not matter. Science has a self correction method that relatively quickly corrects incorrect research.

Reposting old failed claims of yours is just you admitting defeat all over again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105928 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Most of these studies conclude that the mutation rate in humans today is roughly half the rate that has been used in many evolutionary studies since 2000, which would make genetic estimates of dates older than previously believed. The question now is how much older?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6104/18...
ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6099/11...
These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
That is just some of the data. The reason why deleterious mutations and negative epistasis do not send any species extinct is unknown and only assumptions are offered based on flawed and biased research and a belief in TOE. You cannot refute that, you can only spam and throw tantrums. Hence, not one shred of any support for TOE has any credibility.
So these big long posts of yours full of your opinion are a huge waste of everyones time.
Yes, so what? The exact time of when humans split off form other apes is still not settled. How does that matter? They are trying to solve the problem rather than sitting on their fat ass saying "god did it" without any evidence for god.

And Maz, the only one wasting their time here is you. All you can post is nonsense that is not supported by the articles that you list. It is laughable to say the least.

Since: Nov 13

Maple, Canada

#105930 Nov 15, 2013
For anyone who think's there's "overwhelming" evidence supporting natural selection, you're mistaken.

If you like my opinions please follow me on http://www.opinionoto.com/JordN

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#105931 Nov 15, 2013
hellboy99 wrote:
For anyone who think's there's "overwhelming" evidence supporting natural selection, you're mistaken.
If you like my opinions please follow me on http://www.opinionoto.com/JordN
I am sorry, you are mistaken.

If you don't like my opinions please go to www.eatcrap.com

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#105932 Nov 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Maz, we already have explained how this dubious study does not matter. Science has a self correction method that relatively quickly corrects incorrect research.
Reposting old failed claims of yours is just you admitting defeat all over again.
What dubious study? I have posted a plethora of evolutionary studies all of which demonstrate evolutionary researchers have no clue what they are talking about most of the time. Suck it up Subby. Being ignorant is not an appropriate scientific reply.

The data is unexpected and NOT predicted under the umbrella of TOE. However, the data, is expected, predicted and welcome by creationists.

Your waffle about TOE being a theory in evolution itself with no predictive ability backed by 150 years of falsifications doesn't change a thing I claimed and supported with your very own flawed and biased evolutionary research. Either you can support your claims with the rubbish and flavours of the month on offer at the moment or you can't. You, Dude, Aura and the rest of you evos obviously can't, but just want to post anyway.

“Proud Member”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#105933 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What dubious study? I have posted a plethora of evolutionary studies all of which demonstrate evolutionary researchers have no clue what they are talking about most of the time. Suck it up Subby. Being ignorant is not an appropriate scientific reply.
The data is unexpected and NOT predicted under the umbrella of TOE. However, the data, is expected, predicted and welcome by creationists.
Your waffle about TOE being a theory in evolution itself with no predictive ability backed by 150 years of falsifications doesn't change a thing I claimed and supported with your very own flawed and biased evolutionary research. Either you can support your claims with the rubbish and flavours of the month on offer at the moment or you can't. You, Dude, Aura and the rest of you evos obviously can't, but just want to post anyway.
Can a self licking ice cream cone explain how modern whales came to be, and why there is a trail of intermediate species along the way over 20-30 billion years , from a creationists hypothesis without there ever being evolution of species?

We wait, but expect....crickets.

BTW the Nobel prize awaits your creation theory, all you have to do is write it!

“Proud Member”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#105934 Nov 15, 2013
Oh I'm so wrong...I meant 20-30 million years.
But Expect "crickets".

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 min It aint necessari... 152,260
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 20,298
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 21 hr ChristineM 45,559
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