Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209897 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

#60828 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh will you get back to defending your stupid chromosome 2 fusion?
Now that you have provided your big post we have all been waiting for you had best stick to ch2. You were doing better then.
If you can't deal with the science on the table now, we have no hope of getting anywhere around flood geology.
I already did. You are not an expert in this subject and neither am I. So far you have posted nothing that made the experts in this field to even blink. You made the claim, it was up to you to make it in the first place, you failed. You could not find anyone who new anything of the subject to support your claim.

And there is no such thing as flood geology. That bit the dust before Darwin even made the scene.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60829 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Because some idiot was paying out on a creationist trying to support the creation.
Can you try again in English this time?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#60830 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
No one has ever falsified creationism either.
Creation cannot be falsified because it is not testable. It claims that an undemonstrated entity caused everything to exist by indeterminate means (basically, "an invisible man did it by Magic").

If it can be claimed that anything which is observed can be the result of a creator, there is no way to demonstrate the existence of that creator.
MazHere wrote:
Evos tried with both junk dna and vestegial organs and failed miserably, it seems, only to demonstrate indeed it is they that have no idea what they are talking about.
ENCODE's use of the term "functional" merely meant that genetic material could interact with things. It looks like 11% has been shown to contribute to the development our development and that number could grow to, perhaps, 20% with further research. The remaining 80% is junk.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#60831 Nov 24, 2012
spidersandsnakes wrote:
<quoted text>
Their is proof, The romans spoke of Jesus as a teacher and healer.
Evolution is misleading, because evolution is possible but only on a small scale. Macro evolution is not possible.
Evolution should be called adapting.Animals only adapt they never change into a completely different species.
this is not pokemon.
I have a trantula, I've had her for a year. she knows when I open her tank, its either feeding or that want to pick her.
Did she change into another insects,No she is still a spider.
No, the Romans did not speak of Jesus.

Do you know what will happen to your spiders genome in 10 million years...or 100 million years?

Oh, by the way, tarantula is the proper spelling for your pet.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60832 Nov 24, 2012
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Creation cannot be falsified because it is not testable. It claims that an undemonstrated entity caused everything to exist by indeterminate means (basically, "an invisible man did it by Magic").
If it can be claimed that anything which is observed can be the result of a creator, there is no way to demonstrate the existence of that creator.
I have to disagree to a point. Of course the actual creation cannot be tested, but creationists can make predictions based upon their beliefs and those can be tested, flood geology is an example. Flood geology has been thoroughly debunked. The actual creation since it involves magic cannot be tested. Of course creationists do go nuts trying to fit the fossil record, DNA, the nested hierarchy of life etc. to the creation story.

You can always "win" by declaring a form of Last Tuesdayism.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60833 Nov 24, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the Romans did not speak of Jesus.
Do you know what will happen to your spiders genome in 10 million years...or 100 million years?
Oh, by the way, tarantula is the proper spelling for your pet.
There were two very short mentions of Jesus by the Roman historian Josephus, one of which is thought by many to be false. These were written about 60 years after Jesus' death.

Tacitus wrote about Jesus another very short entry about 80 years after his death.

There were no contemporary writers of Jesus Christ. Nor was there any mention of a large number of zombies upon his supposed resurrection.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#60834 Nov 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There were two very short mentions of Jesus by the Roman historian Josephus, one of which is thought by many to be false. These were written about 60 years after Jesus' death.
Tacitus wrote about Jesus another very short entry about 80 years after his death.
There were no contemporary writers of Jesus Christ. Nor was there any mention of a large number of zombies upon his supposed resurrection.
Hey Subduction Zone.

""Josephus, the renowned Jewish historian, was a native of Judea. He was born in 37 A. D., and was a contemporary of the Apostles. He was, for a time, Governor of Galilee, the province in which Christ lived and taught. He traversed every part of this province and visited the places where but a generation before Christ had performed his prodigies. He resided in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle. He mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era. But Christ was of too little consequence and his deeds too trivial to merit a line from this historian's pen."" (Remsberg, Ibid.)

I don't think anyone wrote of a earthquake or eclipse either, but the zombie story I especially liked...and it never happened. Thats what you get with writers that didn't live in the times or write when its fresh in memory.

Makes you wonder about the quality of our own historians and how much of what they wrote was actually true.

Thanks for the info.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#60835 Nov 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
I have to disagree to a point. Of course the actual creation cannot be tested, but creationists can make predictions based upon their beliefs and those can be tested, flood geology is an example.
Magic water appears from nowhere, evaporates into nothing, tiptoes onto the land leaving seashells on tall mountains while avoiding the arid basins and gouges out great chasms without disturbing a grain of sand.

Falsify that.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60836 Nov 25, 2012
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Magic water appears from nowhere, evaporates into nothing, tiptoes onto the land leaving seashells on tall mountains while avoiding the arid basins and gouges out great chasms without disturbing a grain of sand.
Falsify that.
Those weren't the claims of flood geology. Flood geology tried to account for sedimentary strata and land forms by using the flood as the acting agent. That is easily debunked. Magic itself as you described cannot be debunked. But even that is a bit much for creationists.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#60837 Nov 25, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Liars know themselves. You are a liar.
How can human beings evolved from worms or minute organisms?
Why are humans called apes, when there is a big dichotomy between them?
Great apes any way, is just a cover.
There is no big dichotomy between humans and apes, except among Creationists. It's the "made in God's image" crowd that doesn't accept its place in nature.

You've been given tons of evidence on genetics and the fossil record.

I suppose you can take MazHere's approach and find some arcane observation that most scientists don't even take the time to reject, then claim that all Evolution is a fraud based on it, but it's a lie.

I won't suggest that you may not know its a lie. Its a lie. There's too much consensus on the subject and I'm not going to waste my time becoming enough of an authority on the subject to dismiss your rants that are clearly filled with flaws.

The bottom line is that I'm not inviting obsessive/compulsives into my house, metaphorically speaking, so they can wreck it. The only approach when dealing with your type is to systematically isolate you from where you can harm others. If you don't want to be called a liar, stop lying. That's all there is to it.

For now, you're just a liar.

Learn about Scientific Method first. Then learn about Evolution. You may find, once you've sat down and learned how to get our attention, that you didn't need your stupid Creationist crutch to begin with.
hector

United States

#60838 Nov 25, 2012
Poop

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60839 Nov 25, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no big dichotomy between humans and apes, except among Creationists. It's the "made in God's image" crowd that doesn't accept its place in nature.
You've been given tons of evidence on genetics and the fossil record.
I suppose you can take MazHere's approach and find some arcane observation that most scientists don't even take the time to reject, then claim that all Evolution is a fraud based on it, but it's a lie.
I won't suggest that you may not know its a lie. Its a lie. There's too much consensus on the subject and I'm not going to waste my time becoming enough of an authority on the subject to dismiss your rants that are clearly filled with flaws.
The bottom line is that I'm not inviting obsessive/compulsives into my house, metaphorically speaking, so they can wreck it. The only approach when dealing with your type is to systematically isolate you from where you can harm others. If you don't want to be called a liar, stop lying. That's all there is to it.
For now, you're just a liar.
Learn about Scientific Method first. Then learn about Evolution. You may find, once you've sat down and learned how to get our attention, that you didn't need your stupid Creationist crutch to begin with.
No concrete evidence to date.
Just assertions, manipulations and projections.
The gaps.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#60840 Nov 25, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Look are you capable of addressing Sanford work or are you just up for nit picking gobble today.
Shortening, large scale duplication, what do you suppose those are fancy words for?
DIFFERENCE! Like I said evolutionists have no idea what the same means at all. You invent these term that imply an evolutionary event when really you should be saying the comparison demonstrates huge differences that we evos can address with gobble.
I'll be honest, I'm not ready to address "Stanford work" because you've only provided a single link to a Creationist site. The only possibly viable argument that I see is the claim that the number of mutations overlaying the residual telomere sections of Chromosome 2 don't match the statistical amount that should exist after the event occurred. It seems that there is still overwhelming consensus that the event DID occur so at best, there's been some inaccuracy in prediction.

Don't bother linking to a Creationist site. I won't touch them. They're probably hacker sites to begin with. Above and beyond that, I'm not wasting my time on learning about genetics based on one crackpot claim that you WANT to believe, while it seems more obvious that what you really want to do is hurt people who believe the Theory of Evolution. Whatever else is going on in your screwed up mind is not my problem.

Present proper evidence. So far, you've just been throwing a bunch of dust in the air.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#60841 Nov 25, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on you evos you have failed miserably. I just want to see how this forum does no this ch2 thing.
A common evo strategy is to get lost in one liners and asides.
You lot cannot defend any topic I have canvassed so far.
That does not mean TOE is not true. It does mean thatyou do not have substantive and credible evidence for it.
How about one of you bright sparks use your own algorithmic magic to overturn the above algorithmic magic.
I actually don't like any of it but there is only so much we can observe so I guess this type of magic is kind of required for the sake of knowledge of some sort.
No more asides and evo pollywoffling......
Do please demonstrate why your magic that suggests a fusion did occur is more valid than the above research that suggets it did not happen.
As already stated, algorithms are just systematic decision making processes. They help process large quantities of information which is how we find evidence that is scattered throughout the genetic code. The important thing is to use algorithms based on well thought out reason, a quality of which you show NONE!

Credibility is something you must earn.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#60842 Nov 25, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> No concrete evidence to date.
Just assertions, manipulations and projections.
The gaps.
Gaps.... to date!

Charles, concrete evidence wouldn't phase you if it were in the form of a brick wall that just landed on you. Stop lying.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#60843 Nov 25, 2012
Looking for Answers wrote:
Not looking to pick a fight with any creationist or evolutionist out there but looking for answers.
There is a swell of information on basing scientific literature(evidence based medicine for medical literature) and grading the level of evidence to support claims from weak to strong.
Any out there has information on grading evolutionary evidence that can show me where i can find such an article?
Well, I don't think there's system in place for ranking research. That would be a bit subjective. Most of us here don't require formal peer-reviewed scientific papers. We know our level of expertise.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#60844 Nov 25, 2012
spidersandsnakes wrote:
<quoted text>
Their is proof, The romans spoke of Jesus as a teacher and healer.
Evolution is misleading, because evolution is possible but only on a small scale. Macro evolution is not possible.
Evolution should be called adapting.Animals only adapt they never change into a completely different species.
this is not pokemon.
I have a trantula, I've had her for a year. she knows when I open her tank, its either feeding or that want to pick her.
Did she change into another insects,No she is still a spider.
There is no first-hand record of Jesus' existence.

Evolution is not misleading. It does not just happen on a small scale.

Animals do evolve into new species. The defining of species may be considered subjective but once one variant can no longer interbreed with another variant of a parent species, they are considered separate species.

A tarantula is an arachnid, not an insect.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#60845 Nov 25, 2012
Looking for Answers wrote:
Not looking to pick a fight with any creationist or evolutionist out there but looking for answers.
There is a swell of information on basing scientific literature(evidence based medicine for medical literature) and grading the level of evidence to support claims from weak to strong.
Any out there has information on grading evolutionary evidence that can show me where i can find such an article?
I guess it should be noted that there is a system in place among the science community, but it's simply about reputation. Most scientific publications are not freely available over the Internet. That eliminates the quarrelsome claims of discrimination from non-professionals. The science community generally does not think itself to be influenced by class warfare.

You can find some open sources of literature, but in all honesty, I prefer to use sources like Wikipedia and if I need more precise information, start with their sources. A large part of research literature is about source material.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#60847 Nov 25, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Really?
But not in all cases.
No, but you're the one who's invoking statistics, and banking on religiosity among the young is a bad bet.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#60848 Nov 25, 2012
In other words, you're backpedaling from your claim that Germans can "understand" Old English. Yeah, we get that. You lost the debate.
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> No. You are the loser. Check the work of Cyril Babaev, in his book titled, Old English Grammar.
Provide a relevant quote. If not, you still lose.

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
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 1 min wichita-rick 20,575
News Teen arrested after alleged pot-smoking tot vid... 2 min Spotted Girl 30
News Dog reunited with Florida woman after 1,100-mil... 2 min Xstain Mullah Fra... 1
Who won the Presidential debate 2016 ? 2 min andet1987 90
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 4 min Crazy Beautiful 201,019
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 5 min Ricky F 33,681
News Guy keeps getting texts meant for girl who give... 11 min Frank 6
If Trump Wins 30 min Go Blue Forever 41
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Hypocrite Hunter 61,574
Philly grey poster hangout 2 hr No Conservative Here 86
More from around the web