Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216925 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

Macclesfield, UK

#24977 May 6, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Then if a population must contain a set greater than one for the process of evolution to be possible, evolution can be ruled out for the origin of the population.
What process then is used to produce the population to begin with?
Abiogenesis. We constantly point out that evolution does not deal with the origin of life.

The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

Now repeat it over and over.

Cuz I piggin have to.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#24978 May 6, 2012
Illustrated Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is nothing new under the Sun.
If the human body can be predicted with the theory of evolution, what will it be like in 100 yrs from now, or 1000?
You fail to understand what scientific prediction means. Predicted is the scientific form of "explained with understanding" not "prophecy of some random event that will always happen anyway." Not to mention we have not been effected by natural selection for a couple hundred years, so any possible chance of us knowing that is no longer in the realm of scientific predictions because human whims will alter the course of evolution for humans a lot.

One such example is the forcing of gay people to have families has increased the occurrence genetic codes making them gay within the population, there is no "gay gene" however geneticists are looking for combination genes, many traits are actually a result of specific combinations of genes and not one particular gene. Natural selection would have allowed those genes to be removed from the gene pool, yet human selection has kept those genes in the pool and increased their numbers.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#24979 May 6, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So if there is no scientific evidence for the origin of life as you admit, correct?
There is plenty of scientific evidence for abiogenesis, although not yet conclusive.

There is NO evidence of instant special "creation" 6000 years ago. NONE.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#24980 May 6, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
You are playing a cynical word game when you claim that science says we "evolved from rocks." Clearly, you must know better.
It's not THAT clear.(shrug) He's either playing word games for points, or, he really is not capable of paying attention to what's written.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#24981 May 6, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You are under the impression that the Sumerians did not provide documents that contained references to the creation of 12 planets in our solar system, or the creation of the sun, nor would we find any understanding of the orbit patterns of those planets around the sun?
There aren't 12 planets.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#24982 May 6, 2012
Illustrated Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad to hear that you have converted brother!
Well, you've wasted enough of OUR time, haven't you?

At least you seem to be tacitly admitting that you are a scientific Know-Nothing who has no business debating evolution. That, at least, is something, isn't it?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#24983 May 6, 2012
Illustrated Man wrote:
A hundred years from now most, if not all of the science of today will be consider primitive, backword thinking.
But the idea of "God" as an inconceivable intelligence behind the Universe will still be as viable as it has been, and is today.
Inconceivable, hm?

Then it (still) offers little more use than a placebo.(shrug)

And a hundred years from now, I'd bet the evidence for such a thing will be the same as it has been for thousands of years.

Zip.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24984 May 6, 2012
Illustrated Man wrote:
Oh wait, amino acids are not alive.
So? The original statement was "The real missing link would be the bridge between inanimate matter, and the beginnings of life."

Amino acids are part of the beginnings of life. So there is your bridge.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#24985 May 6, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So clearly you acknowledge the fact that there must be more to the origin of life than just random orginization of matter and energy, correct?
"Random" is YOUR straw-man.

P.s. The opposite of random is not "intelligence".
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#24986 May 6, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So if there is no scientific evidence for the origin of life as you admit, correct?
Incorrect. Organic compounds have been demonstrated to arise under natural conditions. The very first life recorded in the fossil record is microbial in nature.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#24987 May 6, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You fail to understand what scientific prediction means. Predicted is the scientific form of "explained with understanding" not "prophecy of some random event that will always happen anyway." Not to mention we have not been effected by natural selection for a couple hundred years, so any possible chance of us knowing that is no longer in the realm of scientific predictions because human whims will alter the course of evolution for humans a lot.
One such example is the forcing of gay people to have families has increased the occurrence genetic codes making them gay within the population, there is no "gay gene" however geneticists are looking for combination genes, many traits are actually a result of specific combinations of genes and not one particular gene. Natural selection would have allowed those genes to be removed from the gene pool, yet human selection has kept those genes in the pool and increased their numbers.
Gays are doomed to extinction. No problem.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#24988 May 6, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you miss the part "complete written language" not some drawing in a cave. We are talking book writings.
Now is this where I should slip in that nasty comments that you seem to use on a regular bases? I prefer to try and treat others with respect.
English is an incomplete written language. We have to add and make new words all the time. No language is complete.

What you should say is "alphabetic," then you're at least close to factual. However, I believe there is an older alphabetic language as well we discovered recently. You see, scientific discovery does not end with one finding and then "that's it, let's move to something else." There are always new findings, new things to learn, science does not stop providing more to learn. That is why many atheists love it, not because we hate religion, but because religion is a one source, never growing, never improving dead end.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#24989 May 6, 2012
Illustrated Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is nothing new under the Sun.
If the human body can be predicted with the theory of evolution, what will it be like in 100 yrs from now, or 1000?
It does not predict the future. Evolution didn't "predict the human body". What it DID do was predict (successfully) what would be found if common ancestry was correct. So far no other scientific explanation has been proposed that can do anything close.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24990 May 6, 2012
If it's a population that reproduces sexually, then a population of 1 is due for extinction. So it's not going to be evolving into a new species.
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
Then if a population must contain a set greater than one for the process of evolution to be possible, evolution can be ruled out for the origin of the population.
Who said that the population begins with only 1 individual?

Let's use a good analogy: Classical Latin became Vulgar Latin which became Old French which became Middle French which became Modern French. For each of these languages, there was a population of speakers. Vulgar Latin did not somehow begin with 1 person speaking Vulgar Latin while everyone else around him spoke Classical Latin.(The same is true for the origins of Old French, Middle French, and Modern French.)

In reality, each population has no origin. It blends seamlessly from one population into the next (as some individuals die and new ones are born).

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#24991 May 6, 2012
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>So you are saying that the Israelites copied their myths from the Sumerian myths? I agree.
Read all the postings

They all come from the same source.
Thousands of years apart and one not even knowing of the others existence

Yet they read a like. Open your mines to what it's really saying.
W

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24992 May 6, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
You are under the impression that the Sumerians did not provide documents that contained references to the creation of 12 planets in our solar system, or the creation of the sun, nor would we find any understanding of the orbit patterns of those planets around the sun?
Where did I claim that there were no Sumerian documents that contained creation myths? The claim that the other poster made was that the oldest known documents were about creation myths. The evidence, on the contrary, indicates that the oldest known documents were about commercial transactions. Any Sumerian creation myth documents came along later.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24993 May 6, 2012
Illustrated Man wrote:
But the idea of "God" as an inconceivable intelligence behind the Universe will still be as viable as it has been, and is today.
In other words, not viable at all.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#24994 May 6, 2012
To the population thing. Binary sexual reproduction has been through stages just like the eye. Many of the other forms exist today as well.

First stage was asexual reproduction, like all small basic organisms.

Second was a bisexual reproduction, like plants.

Next we have fluid reproduction, like amphibians who change gender when needed to maintain the population.

Then we have binary reproduction that is present in mammals and most reptiles.

These are my own descriptives, I don't recall the scientific ones. But there, you whole "if only one ..." argument answered in layman's terms. Happy now?

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#24995 May 6, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not predict the future. Evolution didn't "predict the human body". What it DID do was predict (successfully) what would be found if common ancestry was correct. So far no other scientific explanation has been proposed that can do anything close.
She said that the human body could be "predicted" by evolution.

"to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell..."

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#24996 May 6, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, not viable at all.
Can an ant recognize the intelligence of a human?

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 3 min Old Sam 5,876
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 5 min Old Sam 16,879
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 7 min Old Sam 32,279
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 7 min SUG here 35,668
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 8 min beatlesinthebog 22,237
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 9 min Old Sam 12,814
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 9 min Old Sam 83,179
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 31 min Gunthram 207,209
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 49 min 8541 MARINE 67,268
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr Majority should rule 2,480
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 hr beatlesinthebog 10,652
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 5 hr Lelouch0 1,525
More from around the web