Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 171485 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 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#50391 Oct 4, 2012
Johny wrote:
Drew Smith,
The information problem of evolution is obvious. How did added function develop in life-forms that are highly coupled from a systems point of view. How improbable is probable? These are the questions that evolutionists can't answer and where their faith sets in.
Never make the claim that you have found a question that evolutionists cannot answer. And even if they cannot answer it that does not make the theory of evolution false. New functions have been observed to have evolved. That makes your objection that we don't know how they occurred moot. The fact is that life has developed new functions many times over. There may be many different answers to how life evolved new functions. The fact is that it has happened and we can prove that.

Meanwhile you might start your research into answer here:
https://www.google.com/search...
Johny

League City, TX

#50392 Oct 4, 2012
If we are scientific we need to show that evolution is even probable. It is NOT and stories are made up to explain the supposed transitions between species. Science is concerned about knowing the details and if you leave out most the details you do not have science.

"New function has been observed to evolve."

Evolutionists assume that "new function" can evolve but how do they not know that it is the robustness that is programmed into life to keep it existing? Or is it the genetic variation that exists in a species - preprogrammed information to allow a species to adapt to changing environments. The problem here is that this COULD be evidence for design but evolutionist hijack it and claim it for evolution. Again to prove evolution they need to show that it actually is new and not pre-programmed into the cell.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#50393 Oct 4, 2012
Johny wrote:
If we are scientific we need to show that evolution is even probable. It is NOT and stories are made up to explain the supposed transitions between species. Science is concerned about knowing the details and if you leave out most the details you do not have science.
"New function has been observed to evolve."
Evolutionists assume that "new function" can evolve but how do they not know that it is the robustness that is programmed into life to keep it existing? Or is it the genetic variation that exists in a species - preprogrammed information to allow a species to adapt to changing environments. The problem here is that this COULD be evidence for design but evolutionist hijack it and claim it for evolution. Again to prove evolution they need to show that it actually is new and not pre-programmed into the cell.
Johny...are you an evolutionary specialist?? Is it a field that you have a doctorate in? Something you have worked with for years and years? Have you actually read any of Darwin's books cover to cover?

Do you subscribe to the views of AiG or ICR or The Discovery Institute? Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#50394 Oct 4, 2012
Johny wrote:
If we are scientific we need to show that evolution is even probable. It is NOT and stories are made up to explain the supposed transitions between species. Science is concerned about knowing the details and if you leave out most the details you do not have science.
"New function has been observed to evolve."
Evolutionists assume that "new function" can evolve but how do they not know that it is the robustness that is programmed into life to keep it existing? Or is it the genetic variation that exists in a species - preprogrammed information to allow a species to adapt to changing environments. The problem here is that this COULD be evidence for design but evolutionist hijack it and claim it for evolution. Again to prove evolution they need to show that it actually is new and not pre-programmed into the cell.
Nope, backward, but that is to be expected from a creationist. Since there is more than enough evidence to show that evolution is a fact claims like "we need to show that evolution is probable" must be shown to be right by the people claiming this.

We have done more than enough work to support our side. If you want to come up with offbeat ideas you need to find support for them yourself.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#50395 Oct 4, 2012
Johny wrote:
If we are scientific we need to show that evolution is even probable. It is NOT and stories are made up to explain the supposed transitions between species. Science is concerned about knowing the details and if you leave out most the details you do not have science.
"New function has been observed to evolve."
Evolutionists assume that "new function" can evolve but how do they not know that it is the robustness that is programmed into life to keep it existing? Or is it the genetic variation that exists in a species - preprogrammed information to allow a species to adapt to changing environments. The problem here is that this COULD be evidence for design but evolutionist hijack it and claim it for evolution. Again to prove evolution they need to show that it actually is new and not pre-programmed into the cell.
Haven't you heard?? Intelligent Design is dead. No one wanted to do any work to prove it and make it a viable science.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#50396 Oct 4, 2012
Johny wrote:
If we are scientific we need to show that evolution is even probable. It is NOT and stories are made up to explain the supposed transitions between species. Science is concerned about knowing the details and if you leave out most the details you do not have science.
"New function has been observed to evolve."
Evolutionists assume that "new function" can evolve but how do they not know that it is the robustness that is programmed into life to keep it existing? Or is it the genetic variation that exists in a species - preprogrammed information to allow a species to adapt to changing environments. The problem here is that this COULD be evidence for design but evolutionist hijack it and claim it for evolution. Again to prove evolution they need to show that it actually is new and not pre-programmed into the cell.
Johny, did you know that Genesis and Exodus has been falsified?
Johny

League City, TX

#50397 Oct 4, 2012
You wish it was dead - It is just beginning! Ha!
Johny

League City, TX

#50398 Oct 4, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, backward, but that is to be expected from a creationist. Since there is more than enough evidence to show that evolution is a fact claims like "we need to show that evolution is probable" must be shown to be right by the people claiming this.
We have done more than enough work to support our side. If you want to come up with offbeat ideas you need to find support for them yourself.
Show me any evidence and I could show that it is actually evidence for design! Yes. ID will eat you all up!

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#50399 Oct 4, 2012
Johny wrote:
You wish it was dead - It is just beginning! Ha!
Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "Creation Science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state.

The first publication of the phrase "intelligent design" in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.

From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute, which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the "intelligent design movement".

They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[17]

So basically the US courts have said ID is religion and they/you are lying and trying to subvert the US constitution...you are a traitor...working against the US government.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#50400 Oct 4, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me any evidence and I could show that it is actually evidence for design! Yes. ID will eat you all up!
How can it eat anybody or anything up...it does no work, no experimenting, writes no articles for peer review, it has no government funding, no laboratories or research facilities.

We have circumstantial evidence that Adam and Eve never existed...eat it up!!

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#50401 Oct 4, 2012
Johny wrote:
You wish it was dead - It is just beginning! Ha!
Trust me dude...it's dead. It never really got started.

Evolution rules.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Narara, Australia

#50402 Oct 4, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
In order to avoid potentially embarassing siturations in the future, it is best that you tell us now if you believe Methuselah lived 969 years.
What should be embarassing to you is that you evos are unable to distinguish a human from the other so called apes.

That was the point of my intial comment and neither you or anyone else can challenge it.

As for Methuselah, scientists are working it out as we speak.

"Perhaps de Gray is way too optimistic, but plenty of others have joined the search for a virtual fountain of youth. In fact, a growing number of scientists, doctors, geneticists and nanotech experts—many with impeccable academic credentials—are insisting that there is no hard reason why ageing can’t be dramatically slowed or prevented altogether. Not only is it theoretically possible, they argue, but a scientifically achievable goal that can and should be reached in time to benefit those alive today."

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/03/...

There is no reason why we should age, and aging is the result of the fall.

Evolutionists like to scamper off down the garden path of evasion and change the subject when they are gobsmacked and unable to come up with an appropriate reply.

The sad fact of the matter is that mankind is easily discernable out of a bunch of apes. A child can spot the difference.

The fact that evolutionists stuggle to the very end arguing absurdum is a reflection of what being inculcated into the evolutionary paradigm does to ones mind.

Mankind does not have a fur coat, is an obligate biped and has the traits of higher reasoning ability, sophisticated language and abstract thought all of which are necessary to make sense of the world we live in and discuss issues like the afterlife. Humans have different body ratio to limbs that other apes, humans have 36 chromosomes, humans have one less lumbar verterbae than other great apes, All human telomeres are shorter than in other apes except for sex genes, The male Y chromosome is over 30% different. The protien expression of genes is 80% different to chimps etc etc etc.

Indeed there are many differences that evolutionists have to ignore and straw grab at little similarities to amintain those evogoggles you lot wear.

Hence you should be embarassed that a child can pick a human out of a bunch of apes and you evos cannot.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#50403 Oct 4, 2012
Johny wrote:
If we are scientific we need to show that evolution is even probable. It is NOT and stories are made up to explain the supposed transitions between species. Science is concerned about knowing the details and if you leave out most the details you do not have science.
"New function has been observed to evolve."
Evolutionists assume that "new function" can evolve but how do they not know that it is the robustness that is programmed into life to keep it existing? Or is it the genetic variation that exists in a species - preprogrammed information to allow a species to adapt to changing environments. The problem here is that this COULD be evidence for design but evolutionist hijack it and claim it for evolution. Again to prove evolution they need to show that it actually is new and not pre-programmed into the cell.
So your argument is that the world does not change. And if it does, it's towards corruption and sin.

Perhaps you could explain why tuberculosis still exists and some strains are resistant to the old antibiotics? Work of Satan?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Narara, Australia

#50404 Oct 4, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Trust me dude...it's dead. It never really got started.
Evolution rules.
TOE wins the award for the most laughable and unstable so called 'science' stream around and has mislead the world into thinking it is scientific.
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#50405 Oct 4, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Never make the claim that you have found a question that evolutionists cannot answer. And even if they cannot answer it that does not make the theory of evolution false. New functions have been observed to have evolved. That makes your objection that we don't know how they occurred moot. The fact is that life has developed new functions many times over. There may be many different answers to how life evolved new functions. The fact is that it has happened and we can prove that.
Meanwhile you might start your research into answer here:
https://www.google.com/search...
TOE Is False.......It CAnnot Stand Up To The Scientific Method Of Observable, Or Reapeatable. Sorry, Just Using The Insane Criteria That Scientist Impose.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#50406 Oct 5, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
snip
Please explain this assertion:

"There is no reason why we should age, and aging is the result of the fall."
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#50407 Oct 5, 2012
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
So your argument is that the world does not change. And if it does, it's towards corruption and sin.
Perhaps you could explain why tuberculosis still exists and some strains are resistant to the old antibiotics? Work of Satan?
Unclean Foods.....Reference The Bible

Most Diseases Are A Combination Of Bad Choices. Like Aids
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#50408 Oct 5, 2012
Sorry, I Must Head To Work To Provide For The Entitlement Class.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#50409 Oct 5, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
TOE Is False.......It CAnnot Stand Up To The Scientific Method Of Observable, Or Reapeatable. Sorry, Just Using The Insane Criteria That Scientist Impose.
The American Christian Taliban has declared dogma. Case closed. Wolverine has spoken. err, posted on a divinely granted technology.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#50410 Oct 5, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
Unclean Foods.....Reference The Bible
Most Diseases Are A Combination Of Bad Choices. Like Aids
Like eating shrimp, clams, lobster, bacon or wearing cloth of mixed fibers?

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 Word is First Word (no "breast" word please) 7 min cathouse cowboy 72
What Can Be Checked? 7 min greymouser 98
Just start naming actors and actresses (Sep '11) 13 min Cyan in CA 2,852
Answer a question with a question 14 min Hatti_Hollerand 422
Dedicate a song (Jul '08) 14 min Classic 15,996
Give me some advise.plz 15 min nikevision 1
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 22 min dragoon70056 4,911
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 2 hr Satan 29,486
You know it's over when... (Aug '12) 2 hr Camilla 1,536
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Satan 166,882
More from around the web