Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221490 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.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106491 Nov 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a YEC. So DER!
As far as YECism goes....You don't have any evidence of abiogenesis but that has never stopped the evolutionary story..
<quoted text>
You'r a real simpleton. And NO, independent genesis is supported by toal genome functionality. There is loads of evidence for it and I have posted it. Would like to see it again, oh smart one.
<quoted text>
You don't gert to set my benchmarks for me. You lot have had to change the meaning of vestigial to mean 'different' function, instead of 'NO' function. eg apendix. You show one so called vestigial anything and I;ll show you what trash heads you all are.
<quoted text>
No the fossils record does not show progression at all. eg Basilosaurus that predates its ancestors.
Try again, because your post is based on your opinion. Subby has already flopped out totally. There has been no evidence presented on epistasis that does nto run counter clockwise to evolutionary claims, yet support a creationist paradigm.
Subby flopped on whales, with Indohyus ambulocetus natans that coexisted and basilosaurus that predates them both. That does not demonstrate a line of descent at all and neither does any ofyour fossil evidence. It demonstrates puctuated equilibrium when something like a deer suddenly pops up in the record as something like a sea lion.
If God waved his hand and created Adam and Eve and we are all descended from them, how could so many different races of man now exist without evolution. If there was no evolution we would all look the same. Or did God have a different creation for each race?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#106492 Nov 22, 2013
SBT wrote:
These structures and means go into the "mystery" box because they confound the dogma, and really point to "If its ancient it's Smarter" as a very plausible concept.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4149

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#106493 Nov 22, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>A corbel arch is an arch-like construction method but is not considered a true arch. Egyptian dwelling and public buildings of the time consisted of brick walls with wooden timbers laid across the to create a roof. They were basically sophisticated lean to's with two supporting walls. Discussing the semantics of architectural terms is interesting but really has little to do with evolution of the human species.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106494 Nov 22, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are getting this stuff from???
Why would a placental whale have less in common with a placental shark eg bull shark, than a hippo or pig?

Sharks belonging to the family of Lamniformes can maintain their body temperature above that of the ambient water temperature and have filaments of elastic protein resembling the horny keratin in hair and feathers.

Prior to dna a whale was morphologically closer to a pig. With dna testing a whale is claimed to be evolutionarily closer to a hippo.

Given a bull shark is warm blooded, also has signs of hair proteins, both whale and shark are fully aquatic both use placental birth, it is very curious where evolutionists get their stuff from.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106495 Nov 22, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>If God waved his hand and created Adam and Eve and we are all descended from them, how could so many different races of man now exist without evolution. If there was no evolution we would all look the same. Or did God have a different creation for each race?
So here above we see an evolutionist leaving the land of science hoping to justify himself by poking at philosophy.

The creation MUST have the ability to interact with its environment. eg immunity, epigentic inheritance. That is why an organism has some ability to adapt but not sufficient ability to adapt out of its familial clade.eg negative epistasis with beneficial mutaions & majority deleterious mutations.

How about you explain why any variation can be given a new species name eg ring species, yet the variation within mankind is refered to as 'race' when the variation within mankind is greater than ring species.

The terms 'race' and 'breed' is just another great example of evolutionists having no idea what they are talking about.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#106496 Nov 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would a placental whale have less in common with a placental shark eg bull shark, than a hippo or pig?
Sharks belonging to the family of Lamniformes can maintain their body temperature above that of the ambient water temperature and have filaments of elastic protein resembling the horny keratin in hair and feathers.
Prior to dna a whale was morphologically closer to a pig. With dna testing a whale is claimed to be evolutionarily closer to a hippo.
Given a bull shark is warm blooded, also has signs of hair proteins, both whale and shark are fully aquatic both use placental birth, it is very curious where evolutionists get their stuff from.
Feeling a little spammy today, Maz?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106497 Nov 22, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Feeling a little spammy today, Maz?
I'd say your defering a point of science to reply with spam is indicating you are the spammy one as all evolutionists will demonstrate themselves to be. eg Aura and ice cream, having no clue how the genome can survive billions of years of negative epistasis, deleterious mutations, deteriorating genome, a hippo or pig being closer to a whale than a bull shark.

There is plenty of science on the table from creos but only spam and stupid questions from evos. That says it all!!! LOL!

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106498 Nov 22, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post Mudd, and kudos on the pun, just can't agree with Originate. Without going through the well-documented formation of English, I agree that it was formed in England, where it evolved into the first forms of English, but it's roots; it's prehistory point to it's origin which was that brought over by Germanic tribes in the beginning of the fifth century, four hundred years before England was formed as unified state.
I agree that English roots came from a combination of the Germanic Anglo's and Saxons. However their languages were slightly different and were combined with the Celtic languages being spoken in Brittan when they arrived. Although the Normans were also descended from Germanic tribes their language was predominately influenced by Latin that had been combined with their original Germanic language. The Normans had the largest influence on the modern English language. Hence joke about English being French's largest sub language. It was not until all of these languages where combined in more and lesser degree's did the language of English form in England. The Celts spoke Celtic Anglo's spoke Anglo. The Saxons spoke Saxon and the Normans spoke Norman. None of them spoke English because English did not exist until a cocktail of all of those language evolved. Of course the only reason the Irish started speaking English is because of their love of cocktails. It is hard to pin point when English became a language of its own but it was well after the Norman invasion. Since that cocktail was mixed in England I must insist that English was created in England and because of that it is called English.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106499 Nov 22, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>I agree that English roots came from a combination of the Germanic Anglo's and Saxons. However their languages were slightly different and were combined with the Celtic languages being spoken in Brittan when they arrived. Although the Normans were also descended from Germanic tribes their language was predominately influenced by Latin that had been combined with their original Germanic language. The Normans had the largest influence on the modern English language. Hence joke about English being French's largest sub language. It was not until all of these languages where combined in more and lesser degree's did the language of English form in England. The Celts spoke Celtic Anglo's spoke Anglo. The Saxons spoke Saxon and the Normans spoke Norman. None of them spoke English because English did not exist until a cocktail of all of those language evolved. Of course the only reason the Irish started speaking English is because of their love of cocktails. It is hard to pin point when English became a language of its own but it was well after the Norman invasion. Since that cocktail was mixed in England I must insist that English was created in England and because of that it is called English.
It is great to see evolutionists head for the hills and stay as far away from science as they possibly can. What language was grunting to indicate the first recognizable word ever spoken?

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106500 Nov 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So here above we see an evolutionist leaving the land of science hoping to justify himself by poking at philosophy.
The creation MUST have the ability to interact with its environment. eg immunity, epigentic inheritance. That is why an organism has some ability to adapt but not sufficient ability to adapt out of its familial clade.eg negative epistasis with beneficial mutaions & majority deleterious mutations.
How about you explain why any variation can be given a new species name eg ring species, yet the variation within mankind is refered to as 'race' when the variation within mankind is greater than ring species.
The terms 'race' and 'breed' is just another great example of evolutionists having no idea what they are talking about.
environmental change is a driving force of evolution and the fact that species change to adapted to an new environment is evolution. As groups of humans spread across the world they evolved different skin tones and difference physics that were better suited to their different environments. The difference between races and breeds is purely semantics. It is like tribes, herds, packs, pods, and flocks. They are simply difference words describing different animals doing the same thing,, ie grouping together. Inconsistencies in languages is not proof that evolution does not exist. However there may be some truth to the theory Creationist believe in that they have not evolved. Have you checked your knuckles for calluses lately?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#106501 Nov 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd say your defering a point of science to reply with spam is indicating you are the spammy one as all evolutionists will demonstrate themselves to be. eg Aura and ice cream, having no clue how the genome can survive billions of years of negative epistasis, deleterious mutations, deteriorating genome, a hippo or pig being closer to a whale than a bull shark.
There is plenty of science on the table from creos but only spam and stupid questions from evos. That says it all!!! LOL!
Sez the one who keep posting the same things over and over and over again.

I've no interest in discussing bull sharks with you. You have made enough very basic errors that it is clear to me that you're more of a parrot than anything else. It's also clear that you have no interest in honest discussion but use the forum to preach so you can try to feel good about yourself and pat yourself on the ass.

Pax vobiscum.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106502 Nov 22, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Sez the one who keep posting the same things over and over and over again.
I've no interest in discussing bull sharks with you. You have made enough very basic errors that it is clear to me that you're more of a parrot than anything else. It's also clear that you have no interest in honest discussion but use the forum to preach so you can try to feel good about yourself and pat yourself on the ass.
Pax vobiscum.
I can, or have, posted research to back each and every claim I have made. Request any, and feel free to post more than your opinion. Why should I bother to reword a substantive post or let multiple points go just because you evos are ignorant and have learned to spam and say DER!?...LOL!

You evos must think waving your hands around in denial and pointing to the blustering majority, that have proven to be consistently wrong, is some evo great escape.

Here is a major copy and paste to demonstrate just a few points you evos like to run away from...

So let's recap this 'science' you evos like to suggest you use. Certain predictions can be made from a creationist and evolutionary paradigm.

1. Adaptation is limited and organisms will remain in their familial groups. All recent genomic research runs counter clockwise to evolutionary expectations and indeed there is plenty of biased data that supports the creo paradigm that the genome is restricted and limited in its ability to adapt from microbe to dinosaur.

2. The genome will be found to be fully functional. A creator has no need to put junk in the genome as evos predicted. So far we are up to a definite 80% and well credentialled researchers eg Gingeras from ENCODE, fully expect that to rise to 100%.

3. All organs will be found to have some function. A creator as no need to make functionless organs. This has been validated with the evolutionary myth of 'NO function' being falsified.

4. Organisms will be found to appear suddenly in the fossil record and in line with a documented account of the appearance of life. This continues to be valdiated. eg Tetrapods, Cambrian explosion, animal life began in the sea.

Hence evolutionists would rather die than admit the evidence for creationism keeps mounting while evos continue to look silly with their flavours of the month and falsifications of previous claims.

Evo defaulting to the bluster of the majority is a fools talent. Evo empirical research based on algorithmic magic is only good for supporting the prevailing bias.

LOOK...

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/...

How about one of you evos actually provide some of what you call the best of your flawed and biased research that suppports any of your evolutionary claims better than it does a creationist paradigm?

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106503 Nov 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
It is great to see evolutionists head for the hills and stay as far away from science as they possibly can. What language was grunting to indicate the first recognizable word ever spoken?
JM and I are having a side discussion about history of English. Like myself he is obviously a person who enjoys history and likes discussing how it impacts modern man. We both agree that English evolved from different languages. Our only difference of opinion lays in that he believe that English should be credited to the first tribes to inhabit England where as I believe that it should be credited to the combination of tribes who later inhabited England. In comparison to the evolution discussion we would be evolutionists discussing how English evolved where as you the creation would be denying that English exists.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#106505 Nov 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would a placental whale have less in common with a placental shark eg bull shark, than a hippo or pig?
Sharks belonging to the family of Lamniformes can maintain their body temperature above that of the ambient water temperature and have filaments of elastic protein resembling the horny keratin in hair and feathers.
Prior to dna a whale was morphologically closer to a pig. With dna testing a whale is claimed to be evolutionarily closer to a hippo.
Given a bull shark is warm blooded, also has signs of hair proteins, both whale and shark are fully aquatic both use placental birth, it is very curious where evolutionists get their stuff from.
Despite all the self licking ice cream cone efforts , you wont find a single Chondrichthyes , in the Mammaliaformes clade or Mammalia class. Maybe you're a cartilaginous fish? That would certainly explain many things.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106506 Nov 22, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>environmental change is a driving force of evolution and the fact that species change to adapted to an new environment is evolution. As groups of humans spread across the world they evolved different skin tones and difference physics that were better suited to their different environments. The difference between races and breeds is purely semantics. It is like tribes, herds, packs, pods, and flocks. They are simply difference words describing different animals doing the same thing,, ie grouping together. Inconsistencies in languages is not proof that evolution does not exist. However there may be some truth to the theory Creationist believe in that they have not evolved. Have you checked your knuckles for calluses lately?
Ring species is a better example of evolutionists going around in circles than something like a deer heading for the sea.

Credentialled researchers know the difference between demonstrating evolutionary change above species level and not.The fact that you do not, is not my problem. That is why all you evos ever do is invent more and more subspecies, as if you actually knew what that meant.

Thanks for mentioning the second greatest bluster of the majority, 150 years of human knuckle walking ancestry, falsified on the back of one single fossil find Ardi. LOL!

The biggest evo bluster of the majority flop was, the evolutionary claim of left over non functional 'junk' dna. Another belly buster that now supports a creationist paradigm!

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#106507 Nov 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd say your defering a point of science to reply with spam is indicating you are the spammy one as all evolutionists will demonstrate themselves to be. eg Aura and ice cream, having no clue how the genome can survive billions of years of negative epistasis, deleterious mutations, deteriorating genome, a hippo or pig being closer to a whale than a bull shark.
There is plenty of science on the table from creos but only spam and stupid questions from evos. That says it all!!! LOL!
No animal hence the "animal genome" has existed for billions of years ..so you are making a non-statement.
Currently all animal life is less than half a billion years old, but there is no indication it will degrade itself into extinction from deleterious mutation. NS tends to correct this problem and mutation is the reason a genome survives. So your premise is not only flawed but short sighted. Evolution is built on the death of species preceding the ones that evolved into the ones have now.
Survival is mutation and adaptation.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106508 Nov 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So here above we see an evolutionist leaving the land of science hoping to justify himself by poking at philosophy.
The creation MUST have the ability to interact with its environment. eg immunity, epigentic inheritance. That is why an organism has some ability to adapt but not sufficient ability to adapt out of its familial clade.eg negative epistasis with beneficial mutaions & majority deleterious mutations.
How about you explain why any variation can be given a new species name eg ring species, yet the variation within mankind is refered to as 'race' when the variation within mankind is greater than ring species.
The terms 'race' and 'breed' is just another great example of evolutionists having no idea what they are talking about.
The problem with to many religions is they are afraid to admit they are ever wrong about anything. decent and difference of opinion are simply not permitted. That fact that evolution exists is not proof that God does not. However there is hope for you yet. Is not Devine Design simply saying that evolution is part of Gods nature? That is the basis of Darwin's theory. Darwin set out to better under the nature of God by studying Gods nature. Because what he discovered did not march is lock step with genesis he was rejected by the church which demand absolute obedience and tolerated zero difference of opinion. They were more interested in preserving their power then in understand Gods nature. They believed to maintain power they themselves must be infallible. If you truly believe in God you would believe that only God is infallible. Blind faith and absolute obedience was the order of the day. Darwin believed in God and believed that evolution was part of Gods nature. Go ahead and admit that genesis was wrong and evolution is Gods nature. You can have it both ways. Most of us do.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#106509 Nov 22, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is assumed evolutionary progression.
No, observed. Remember?

116 pyramids. Count 'em.

By the way, I see your linkys are getting better. UFO conspiracy theorists? What's next, Conservapedia?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#106510 Nov 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
I am not a YEC. So DER!
Good. Then like I said you have zip to prevent evolution from occurring, plus even better you demonstrate how laughably inconsistent creationism is.

Just because you're an OEC doesn't mean you deserve less flak. You only reject SLIGHTLY less reality than YEC's do. But since in BOTH positions if evolution is wrong the consequence is ALL science is wrong it barely makes much of a difference.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
You don't have any evidence of abiogenesis but that has never stopped the evolutionary story.
Of course we have evidence, which you can't address, plus you keep lying about ToE being reliant on it.
MazHere wrote:
You'r a real simpleton.
You say reality ain't real cuz Jews are magic.
MazHere wrote:
And NO, independent genesis is supported by toal genome functionality. There is loads of evidence for it and I have posted it. Would like to see it again, oh smart one.
You never presented it the first time.(shrug) Either way though it still leaves you with (another) contradiction. And you won't ever bother to address that either.
MazHere wrote:
You don't gert to set my benchmarks for me.
YOU? Maz, YOU are irrelevant. You're just a willfully ignorant uneducated mook who is being used by us as an example of monstrous stupidity - to great effect I might add. Reality sets the benchmark for EVERYONE. Then you ignore reality, lie constantly and we point it out. Simple.
MazHere wrote:
You lot have had to change the meaning of vestigial to mean 'different' function, instead of 'NO' function. eg apendix. You show one so called vestigial anything and I;ll show you what trash heads you all are.
Your arm.

You CAN live without it.

Sorry, but IC never made it past "Behe is a stupendous crank" stage.
MazHere wrote:
No the fossils record does not show progression at all. eg Basilosaurus that predates its ancestors.
Try again, because your post is based on your opinion. Subby has already flopped out totally. There has been no evidence presented on epistasis that does nto run counter clockwise to evolutionary claims yet support a creationist paradigm.
Of course not. Not if all evolution papers done by evolutionary scientists using evolutionary methods you reject really support magic Jews even though they say they support evolution. Obviously you're more qualified than silly scientists.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
Subby flopped on whales, with Indohyus ambulocetus natans that coexisted and basilosaurus that predates them both. That does not demonstrate a line of descent at all and neither does any ofyour fossil evidence. It demonstrates puctuated equilibrium when something like a deer suddenly pops up in the record as something like a sea lion.
Actually what we find is microbes, prokaryotes, then eukarotes, then sponges & fungi, plants, sea invertibrates, soft-bodied organisms followed by hard-bodied organisms, vertibrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals - in THAT order. Sure sounds more like evolution than Adam and Eve from a pile of dirt and a spare rib.

But then, evidence doesn't MATTER when your position is Godmagic.

And no matter how often you cut it you can't get out of that without lying. Poor fundie mook.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#106511 Nov 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
So let's recap this 'science' you evos like to suggest you use. Certain predictions can be made from a creationist and evolutionary paradigm... blah blah more bullshit
Previously debunked. Why don't you tell us again how Godmagic passes the scientific method again?

Keep lying Maz.

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
Is Creationism and Intelligent Design debunked ... 1 min THE LONE WORKER 262
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 min Nemesis 167
Evidence that no god exists 4 min Nemesis 6
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 37 min Science 75,060
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Genesis Enigma 162,035
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 4 hr yehoshooah adam 4,067
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr Al Caplan 32,049
More from around the web