Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#61081 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I absolutlely love the way people make such statements like as if what is on offer is actually proven to be factual as opposed to theoretical. Just because a theory is popular does not mean it has merit.
Let's not forget that the physics of the Big bang do not make any sense and break down at the moment of the universes creation. As more biased data came in they have has to now place the material universe on the outer edge of a bubble. That is the latest.
Of course BB in its entirety requires that 96% of the matter in the universe to be dark energy, a mysterious substance they know nothing about except it gives them an insertion value that helps some of the muddle but does not save the physics breaking down.
Many researchers are looking for new theories because they can see BB is problematic.
http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...
I have posted the above many times previously.
This is another theory, still based on a big bang style model, that by placing the earth at the centre of the universe does not require the mystery of dark energy and still aligns with theories of general relativity.
Further to that the best challenge to it, the predicted afterglow, is now being challenged as some galaxies do not cast the intergalactic shadow that should be seen. This info is not very pubicized.
The other challenge is that scientists can't stand the thought that the earth is placed in a special position, because that may actually get people believing they have support for Gods and such things and they can't have that going on at all.
Hence to offer a premise as fact based on a model that is problematic is really not a fact at all.
What is observed is that all galaxies, except Andromeda, are moving away from the earth. It is atheists prticularly that support the Copernican principle that the earth and man is not special. Then theists follow them because they actually believe these speculators know what they are talking about and have evidence.
So researchers build algorithms and models that explain why indeed what we observe is not real at all and why their algorithmic magic and speculative modelling is actually more factual than observation. Atheists, in particular, are very skilled at this task.

One wrong thing after another.

First, theories EXPLAIN facts and make predictions. Good theories (like evolution and atomic theory) do this well.

Second, your "new theory" is just the Temple & Smoller hypothesis which fell apart with the observation of dark energy around the Magellanic Clouds. Now that dark energy has been observed there is no need for Temple & Smoller. They both have been remarkably silent since this research has been published.

Third, there are about 100 galaxies moving TOWARD us (blue shifted). Not just one.
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/...

Can't you get anything right?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61083 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose you aren't bright enough to understand that the research into junk dna being at least 80% functional has been peer reviewed as has all the work that suggests so called vestigial organs have function that resulted in evos having to suck it up and change their definition of vestigial.
I also suppose you are however blind and biased enough to be totally ignorant of any creationist work nor how creos have to mask their work as evolutionary to even get it past the up themselves watch dogs.
Here is some creationist work on genetic entropy. You may now go off and search for your own algorithmic magic based on your own assumptions and try to make that dwoddle look as if it refutes Sanford.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
While you're at it you may as well explain how research that suggests an overwhelmingly negative effect re epitasis does not support Sanfords claims that there are limits to the amount of adaptation and accumulation of mutations an organism can undergo without such huge costs that the process could not have continued for over 4 billion years without all organisms going into extinction.
What a liar! Those are not creation science and you misrepresented their work, in other words you lied about that too.

Those are molecular biologists who clearly believe the theory of evolution and were looking for limiting factors on the speed that bacteria can evolve.

Very nice, since there is not creationist peer reviewed articles Maz thinks it is fine to hijack some of that of evolutionists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61084 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
I have learned from many books. But only the Bible is Gods word. I dont see why you would read so many books written by men and believe them but wont believe Gods holy word.
And again, what is your evidence that the Bible is your god's word?

Your Bible can be shown to be wrong, have internal inconsistencies, it shows evidence of being rewritten after the fact for some of its prophesies and many other faults. In other words it has the same faults that any other religious work of man claiming to know how the world was made has.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61085 Nov 26, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You said one truth in there. Evolution is still not the most popular theory, it's just provided us with the most benefits, your creationist mythology is actually more popular, and it's not produced anything beneficial. You just defeated your own argument, thank you for conceding that the theory of evolution is beneficial.
You are more of an idiot than I ever suspected. I have never stated that creation is the most popular theory at all.

So you create your own misinformation and then apply it.

Indeed if these stupid researchers had of listened to creos they would not have wasted over a decade just working out that non coding dna was functional. This may have allowed the advancement of genetic therapies to advance much quicker than they have by wasting time chasing ghosts and evolutionary assumptions.

It is not the theory of evolution that has provided a benefit to the population you silly one. The benefit has come from observed research in the here and now.

In fact some researchers that are also evos are suggesting that indeed some evolutionary assumptions around retrovirus have hindered medical advancement in the treatment of aides.

http://www.originofaids.com/
http://www.originofaids.com/articles/early.ht...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61086 Nov 26, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What a liar! Those are not creation science and you misrepresented their work, in other words you lied about that too.
Those are molecular biologists who clearly believe the theory of evolution and were looking for limiting factors on the speed that bacteria can evolve.
Very nice, since there is not creationist peer reviewed articles Maz thinks it is fine to hijack some of that of evolutionists.
I am not a liar you dickweed.

Just because a scientists still accept TOE when their assumptions and predictions are falsified does not mean I am a liar.

That fact that you have such a hard time accepting the obvious is a clear demonstration that you are the point leader here because you post the most woffle.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#61088 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose you aren't bright enough to understand that the research into junk dna being at least 80% functional has been peer reviewed

True, but that in no way supports creationism. In reality this is just more clarification of what DNA does and its role in evolution.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> as has all the work that suggests so called vestigial organs have function that resulted in evos having to suck it up and change their definition of vestigial.

Complete lie.

Your opinions are about as useful as nipples on a man.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> I also suppose you are however blind and biased enough to be totally ignorant of any creationist work

Creationist work. Now there is an oxymoron for the books. Its right up there with "reality television".
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> nor how creos have to mask their work as evolutionary to even get it past the up themselves watch dogs.

You mean they have to go to work and do real science?!?!?! Oh the humanity!
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> Here is some creationist work on genetic entropy.
All this has been refuted. There is a reason Sanford never tried to publish it in peer review. He did make a bundle selling his book to gullible morons, however.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> You may now go off and search for your own algorithmic magic based on your own assumptions and try to make that dwoddle look as if it refutes Sanford.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

Funny, neither of these supports Sanford, a point I guess you are hoping people won't notice.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> While you're at it you may as well explain how research that suggests an overwhelmingly negative effect re epitasis does not support Sanfords claims that there are limits to the amount of adaptation and accumulation of mutations an organism can undergo without such huge costs that the process could not have continued for over 4 billion years without all organisms going into extinction.

Then you must be at a loss to explain why it DID happen. Logically speaking, if something happened it MUST be possible. Don't you think?

Your posts are no challenge.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61089 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a liar you dickweed.
Just because a scientists still accept TOE when their assumptions and predictions are falsified does not mean I am a liar.
That fact that you have such a hard time accepting the obvious is a clear demonstration that you are the point leader here because you post the most woffle.
Yes, you are a liar. You know it, I know it, the only fools you might put this over on are your fellow creatards.

That was not creationist work you linked. It does not support creationism in any way. The scientists working on it don't believe your nonsense.

It is a pretty sad state for your side when you have to steal and misrepresent the work of others.

By the way, how is that Blue Waffle of yours doing?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#61090 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible tells us it is the word of God. And my heart also tells me so. It has never been proven wrong....Please do tell me how your lies change the Bibles truths. I do care if yoru soul is lost. But I will serve and love God and be with him in heaven. Please turn from your sin and find Gods love and study his holy word.

Muslims believe in their heart that the Koran is the word of god. They will tell you it has never been proven wrong (and actually they have a better case). They will tell you that if you do not believe as they do that your soul is lost.

On behalf of all the Muslims in the world I implore you to serve and love Allah and be with him in heaven. Please turn from your sin and find Allah's love and study his holy word.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61091 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible tells us it is the word of God. And my heart also tells me so. It has never been proven wrong....Please do tell me how your lies change the Bibles truths. I do care if yoru soul is lost. But I will serve and love God and be with him in heaven. Please turn from your sin and find Gods love and study his holy word.
Yes, and every other holy book claims the same thing and their adherents feel the same way that you do.

So why should I believe your book of fluff over the thousands of others out there. Most of them have a much better heaven than yours does so doesn't it make more sense to go with the one with the best after life?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61092 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
No just spreading his word and being a good faithful servant.
Yes, like I said you're just another fundie with a big mouth who thinks his baseless religious opinions are relevant.(shrug)

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61093 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose you aren't bright enough to understand that the research into junk dna being at least 80% functional has been peer reviewed as has all the work that suggests so called vestigial organs have function that resulted in evos having to suck it up and change their definition of vestigial.
I also suppose you are however blind and biased enough to be totally ignorant of any creationist work nor how creos have to mask their work as evolutionary to even get it past the up themselves watch dogs.
Here is some creationist work on genetic entropy. You may now go off and search for your own algorithmic magic based on your own assumptions and try to make that dwoddle look as if it refutes Sanford.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
While you're at it you may as well explain how research that suggests an overwhelmingly negative effect re epitasis does not support Sanfords claims that there are limits to the amount of adaptation and accumulation of mutations an organism can undergo without such huge costs that the process could not have continued for over 4 billion years without all organisms going into extinction.
SubductionZone, How does the overwhelmingly negative effects of epitasis support TOE better than John's theory of gentic entropy?

3. Selection can’t stave off deterioration—there are a number of reasons for this:

http://advindicate.com/...

Actually I am keen for some evo to evoke those long lost research skills and find the usual banter that evos offer to refute Sanford. All that woffle was before recent work actually supports Sanfords work again.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61094 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
God made it all. He has been here since the dawn of time and will be here long after time ends. CANT CHANGE FACTS.
Correct. I have been Touched by His Noodly Appendage! ALL HAIL THE FSM!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#61095 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
THE BIBLE IS THE PROOF.....For thousands of years it has remained the same. Showing Gods hand on it.

The Diamond Sutra is older and it has remained the same showing Buddha's hand on it!

Epic of Gilgamesh predates Genesis and is where the flood story came from (word for word in some places). Obviously gods hand is on this pagan legend.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61096 Nov 26, 2012
Generals General wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory that Temple Smoller advocate is a stunning one that has immense implications for cosmology , science and mans place in the universe since earth being the center of the universe couldn't be accidental. Its strange that this theory isn't widely known.
Probably because it's BS.(shrug)

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61097 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
THE BIBLE IS THE PROOF.....For thousands of years it has remained the same. Showing Gods hand on it.
Again it is your soul. Burn for eternity or live in glory in heaven. Your choice.
Oha nd tell me what is so hard about being a Christian that you cant do it?
No, the bible is a bunch of assertions. I ask for proof and you just keep circling around with your assertions. Where is your evidence?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61098 Nov 26, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh....since we cannot detect the EDGES of the universe, there is no way we can calculate the CENTER of the universe.
You will, of course, reply that science has shown that (most) all other galaxies are moving away from us. This is true,*BUT*(most)all other galaxies are moving away FROM EACH OTHER as well. So in that regard, EVERY galaxy could say THEY are the center of the Universe.
Or do you have a link that says different?
He has a special decoder ring with personal link to the Almighty. That not good enough for ya?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61099 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible tells us it is the word of God. And my heart also tells me so. It has never been proven wrong....Please do tell me how your lies change the Bibles truths. I do care if yoru soul is lost. But I will serve and love God and be with him in heaven. Please turn from your sin and find Gods love and study his holy word.
More circular reasoning, you can't break free of your tiny little circle, can you? Then an appeal to emotion, that's new ... NOT. Yeah, you need to really catch up, a lot. Your arguments are old and outdated, part of the flaw of never changing.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61101 Nov 26, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you are a liar. You know it, I know it, the only fools you might put this over on are your fellow creatards.
That was not creationist work you linked. It does not support creationism in any way. The scientists working on it don't believe your nonsense.
It is a pretty sad state for your side when you have to steal and misrepresent the work of others.
By the way, how is that Blue Waffle of yours doing?
If you actually had any idea what you are talking about you would articulate an appropriate response to highlight the misrepresentation I have made to all.

If you actually had any idea what you were talking about you would lodge a considered response to my shallenge on Sanfords work.

Like I said before, you are the point leader because you post the most uneducated woffle.

The fact that you only ever offer vagueary and ridicule with nothing behind you is clear evidence that you wish you had something intelligent to refute me with but indeed the fact is that you don't.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61102 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
Think as you wish. It is your soul that will fry if you dont except God. I hope you did not raise any children. Sad if you did to know they will fry also.
Really? Because creationists have a bad habit of lying their azz off for Jesus. Yet for some reason they think they can be complete aholes and get a free pass. Why do you think that is? Knowledge or hubris?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61103 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
SubductionZone, How does the overwhelmingly negative effects of epitasis support TOE better than John's theory of gentic entropy?
3. Selection can’t stave off deterioration—there are a number of reasons for this:
http://advindicate.com/...
Actually I am keen for some evo to evoke those long lost research skills and find the usual banter that evos offer to refute Sanford. All that woffle was before recent work actually supports Sanfords work again.
The fact is there are not overwhelming negative effects of eptiasis. None has ever been shown to exist. Your linked article was debunked long ago, try to find something new.

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 7 min wichita-rick 161,847
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... 18 min wichita-rick 823
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 23 min Princess Hey 8,270
Word Association (Jun '10) 32 min wichita-rick 27,426
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 47 min Princess Hey 8,132
News $800 LEGO Super Star Destroyer Smashed For May 4th 48 min Cath League of Du... 1
What's your tip for the day? (Jul '14) 58 min wichita-rick 2,021
Things that make life eaiser... 1 hr wichita-rick 283
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 2 hr Brandiiiiiiii 202
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 4 hr Nobody 2 Special 10,925
More from around the web