Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 199159 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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119610 Aug 6, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I love your word games! Oh it didn't create itself, its uncaused! Ha,Ha, Uncaused ? the only reason you choose such an imbecilic notion is that you are afraid of the other answer. You are to smart for such an evasion, if the universe didn't have a creator, then IT DID create itself and all life. That is obvious .
In that case God created itself. Yet YOU claim it's uncaused.

Hence by your own rules, you have chosen an imbecilic notion because you're afraid of the other answer. That is obvious.(shrug)

By the way, none of this STILL has any bearing on the validity of evolution.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119611 Aug 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
never ignored it. in fact i think i posted the link that said that. the fact is that would show evolution of a new species in about 80 years which goes completely against the theory of evolution. "evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". 80 years is not sufficient time to do that according to TOE.
The ToE does not prohibit a new species of goatsbeard over the course of 80 years. You proposed a dare that emergence of a new species has not been observed. Failing that, you attempt to discredit the example, but your protest is moot since 1) there IS a new species of goatsbeard and 2) there are always other examples - isolated populations of mice, cichlid fishes, insects, other plants,.... You don't wish to accept that the ToE is built on credible evidence, but I'd bet you believe Jesus walked on water.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119612 Aug 6, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
The proof is that you exist.¼ million years ago homo sapiens didn’t exist.
This could be used to prove creation also. Would you accept that as proof?
No it isn't.
Because it not only applies to homo Sapiens but also to all other species.
This the palaeontological evidence of the coming and going of species in the time line of life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evol... .

This is the (rather truncated) record of evolution.
And this record is in all respects telling the story of common descent (evolution).
The world was not only once void of humans. If you descend deeper into the fossil record, the world also once was void of mammals. And going back deeper, void of reptiles. Going deeper, void of land animals altogether. There once even were no fish swimming the oceans. And there were eras when there even was no multicellular life around.

It clearly shows that life developed from single cellular life which earliest evidence dates back 3.6 billion years ago. The stratification of the fossil record alone leaves no other conclusion.
The mechanisms that explain this development are known, studied continually and backed by abundant empirical evidence in several realms: embryology, genetics, biogeography, biochemistry, fossil record, comparative anatomy, observed natural selection, observed speciation and artificial selection. And all these different lines of evidence mutually endorse each other.

If you are able to reconcile creation with the biological reality of evolution, we may talk.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Equating micro evolution with macro evolution is using the same logic as this:
We can teach a monkey to say a few words so given enough time a monkey can become a world class orator.
Micro evolution is a change in the phenotype of the sub-population of a species due to an accumulation of tiny genetic changes over many generations. But those changes are not affecting the ability of members of that sub-population to interbreed successfully with members of the other sub-population(s) of that species.

Macro evolution is also the very same change change in the phenotype of the sub-population of a species due to an accumulation of tiny genetic changes over many generations. But those changes did accumulate beyond the boundary where members of that sub-population can interbreed successfully with members of the other sub-population(s) of that species. Because the genetic differences accumulated added up were exceeding the boundary where the two genomes of both sub-populations weren't compatible any more.

In other words, micro- and macro-evolution are EXACTLY the same and both driven by the very same mechanisms. The ONLY difference is TIME. Macro-evolution is micro-evolution on a larger time scale.

That is how biology conceives it.

As a matter of fact, I don't care about your layman's assessments about micro- and macro-evolution. It is just plain tattle by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119613 Aug 6, 2014
bohart wrote:
Your denial is your answer, it portrays your fear
Irony meter go boom.
bohart wrote:
To acknowledge that the universe has a creator is something you cannot do, it violates your belief system.
I don't hold to any belief system, in the religious sense. I simply do not acknowledge the existence of something which has no evidence. Just like I don't have to acknowledge the existence of fairies.

I am open to the possibility of some kind of creator, if such a thing even exists. All you need to do is present evidence. But I have no reason to fear it even if it did exist, for the odds of it resembling anything at all like your particular favourite deity are rather slim to say the least.
bohart wrote:
To say that the universe created itself
We have not made that claim. We have said it might have had a cause which was not a deity, or that it was uncaused. An option you outright REFUSE to consider unless it applies only to your deity. Which is the height of hypocrisy to say the least.
bohart wrote:
and all life is illogical , unreasonable, unscientific, and frankly stupid.
But let's face it Bo, you of all people are unqualified to judge.(shrug)

I mean look at yourself. This is an evolution forum. Which is biology. You came along and couldn't argue against that so you moved the goalposts back to abiogenesis. Then you found you couldn't argue against that either, so now you're moving the goalposts back to the very very start of the universe. That's a cosmology problem. And the funny part is that you call US cowards.
bohart wrote:
So this leaves you and your ilk in the murky nebula of refusing to answer, using word games like uncaused , or accusations of lying
Word games is what creationists do. We use words that have meaninful definitions, which you don't understand because you aren't interested to learn. And we DO provide answers which you simply ignore instead of address. Then all we do is point out that you DO lie, just like you did right now.

So stop whining just because you wanna join Wondering in the ranks of being a sad whiny beeyach.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119614 Aug 6, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I love your word games! Oh it didn't create itself, its uncaused! Ha,Ha, Uncaused ? the only reason you choose such an imbecilic notion is that you are afraid of the other answer. You are to smart for such an evasion, if the universe didn't have a creator, then IT DID create itself and all life. That is obvious .
It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that there is no causality without or "before" time. It is not at all obvious or evidenced that the universe and "all life" are inextricably linked in the mystical way you seem to believe.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119615 Aug 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
who the heII are you to tell anyone to answer a point or question! i have seen in just the last few days you duck and dodge at least two dozen questions. practice what you preach or STFU. you always want answers but never give any, you always want links but never give any. all you do is rattle the tattle. go find another link and make 20 questions trying to look smart as you did with the grand canyon and i will bust it just like i did with your stupid grand canyon questions. better yet go talk to kab about the flud and stop wasting our time with your pure bs nonsense. go get some cheese to go with your whine.
Like you ain't dogded before.

You and Bozo are guilty of irony meter prejudice at its most egregious.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119616 Aug 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
who the heII are you to tell anyone to answer a point or question! i have seen in just the last few days you duck and dodge at least two dozen questions. practice what you preach or STFU. you always want answers but never give any, you always want links but never give any. all you do is rattle the tattle. go find another link and make 20 questions trying to look smart as you did with the grand canyon and i will bust it just like i did with your stupid grand canyon questions. better yet go talk to kab about the flud and stop wasting our time with your pure bs nonsense. go get some cheese to go with your whine.
Stop blowing or drinking too much or whatever you do to twist reality.
And stop quarrelling running around like a chicken without head.

For example: I explained to you that:
1) the 20 questions I posed to SixDays were on his challenge ("Try me")
2) he didn't answer ONE of them
3) hence I repeated it several times to demonstrate his constant dodging
4) at one moment you kicked in with your UTTER IRRELEVANT answers
5) I EVEN affirmed that your answers were as such correct but that my 20 questions served another purpose.

Until now, despite 2 attempts, this STILL hasn't got through your troubled, quarrelsome and muddled head.

As noted before you have personality issues running. Go and let them fixed.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119617 Aug 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
the point is that the evidence supports evolution and not god. so the question stands. since you stepped in now you can answer.. we all know the test for evolution so again,,, how many ways and in what ways has science tested for a god, any god? does science even know how to test for a god? when you answer those three little simple questions we will go from there.
Evolution neither supports nor refutes God. It simply describes a part of the natural world - not the metaphysical. Your handlers/peers have lied. <shrug> It's what they do.
If I contend that my dog can fly, it isn't your responsibility to prove it.
God is your extraordinary claim. What are your (scientific) tests and where is your extraordinary evidence?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119618 Aug 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
the point is that the evidence supports evolution and not god. so the question stands. since you stepped in now you can answer.. we all know the test for evolution so again,,, how many ways and in what ways has science tested for a god, any god? does science even know how to test for a god? when you answer those three little simple questions we will go from there.
To test for existence of a phenomenon, we need a proper definition.
You have to know its properties.
Otherwise you won't know where to look for.
Until now nobody provided such definitions.
Even more, creationists insist that god is beyond our understanding and beyond the normal dimensions of human perception.

Hence, the phenomenon "god" is not TESTABLE.
And in science we don't TEST things that are not TESTABLE.
Your question is only an exhibition of ignorance of scientific methodology.
It is a completely senseless question.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119619 Aug 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
hey randy. don't be afraid to post directly to me.
but back on the topic, evolution happens over much time and many many generations and many many years. not in the case of the tragopogon miscellus which you can see by this link "However in America something new happened. The number of chromosomes in the hybrid spontaneously doubled, and at once it became larger than its parents and quickly spread".
note "the number of chromosomes in the hybrid spontaneously doubled" and "at once it became larger than its parents". that is not evolution.. that is hybridization.
Correction: It is evolution in a hybrid.

note:
"They found that the new plant species had relaxed control of gene expression in its earliest generations. But today, after 80 years of evolution, different patterns of gene expression are found in every plant.

"We caught evolution in the act," says Doug Soltis, co-leader of the research team. New and diverse patterns of gene expression may allow the new species to rapidly adapt in new environments."

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119620 Aug 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
the point is that the evidence supports evolution and not god. so the question stands. since you stepped in now you can answer.. we all know the test for evolution so again,,, how many ways and in what ways has science tested for a god, any god? does science even know how to test for a god? when you answer those three little simple questions we will go from there.
Actually, that was only two questions and really the same question in two forms. Anyway...

Science tests what can be observed. That which cannot be observed by one means or another cannot be tested. If there is any possible observation of a god then it could be tested. I am not aware of any observation of any god effects.
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#119621 Aug 6, 2014
This seems like a very good time to stay grounded in reality.
FREE SERVANT

Fairfax, VA

#119622 Aug 6, 2014
KeepCalmNcarryON wrote:
This seems like a very good time to stay grounded in reality.
Here in the real world.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119623 Aug 6, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Here in the real world.
Oh? You've decided to join us?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119624 Aug 6, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Here in the real world.
Testing the irony meters, FS? Yup - it buzzed.
FREE SERVANT

Fairfax, VA

#119625 Aug 6, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Testing the irony meters, FS? Yup - it buzzed.
Did you say something?
FREE SERVANT

Fairfax, VA

#119626 Aug 6, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh? You've decided to join us?
Now come on Mikeif, was that really necessary?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119627 Aug 6, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Now come on Mikeif, was that really necessary?
If you're going to keep yammering about SCPID, I think it was.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119628 Aug 6, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Did you say something?
Yup, but not a thing worth saying - just following your lead. As the axiom goes about imitation, you may consider it flattery... at least in your "real" world.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119629 Aug 6, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
how many ways and in what ways has science tested for a god, any god? does science even know how to test for a god? when you answer those three little simple questions we will go from there.
What the HECK are you asking us for? Go ask the fundies. It's THEIR idea. The rest of us don't have to worry about it one darn bit.

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) 15 min Ronnie 33,873
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Eagle 12 14,801
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... 3 hr DanFromSmithville 27
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Don Barros Serrano 151,276
My Story Part 1 12 hr JanusBifrons 1
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 15 hr Don Barros Serrano 179,706
Evolution in action Jun 20 Darth Robo 9
More from around the web