Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 comments on the Jan 6, 2011, Best of New Orleans story 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.

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

butler, pa

#61224 Nov 26, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Newton believed in alchemy. We know that's just woowoo. Do you believe you can turn lead to gold with pixie dust?
Alchemy was the precursor of chemistry and metallurgy. Minus the weird stuff, it gave us a bumbling start on some pretty good science.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61225 Nov 26, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Than how do you explain Isaiah talking about events like the Jews return to Israel post ww2. Or the fall of Babylon. Or they sudden rise of Christianity in Rome. Or how the gospel writers we hundreds of miles apart writing the same things about one man. 66 books in one written by so many different people over so many hundreds of years all talking about the same God. Name another religious book written in that fashion.
He did not predict any of those things. At best you can find a Nostradamus type prediction that supposedly only makes sense after the fact, and can be interpreted to cover several events. Those are not predictions.

The gospel writers copied from each other to a wide extent. You can find verses from some of the gospels directly lifted from others.

And I am not saying that Jesus did not exist. I am saying that his resurrection and godhood is a myth.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#61226 Nov 26, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Than how do you explain Isaiah talking about events like the Jews return to Israel post ww2. Or the fall of Babylon. Or they sudden rise of Christianity in Rome. Or how the gospel writers we hundreds of miles apart writing the same things about one man. 66 books in one written by so many different people over so many hundreds of years all talking about the same God. Name another religious book written in that fashion.

Don't need to explain what never happened. Modern Christian projections on the Rorschach test that is called Isaiah not withstanding.

Gospel writers had access to to the oral tradition and probably the Q document. And when you read the synoptic gospels side by side (instead of one after another) they are not all that,... um... synoptic.

Most famous religious books have their own uniqueness. That the Christian bible has one unique quality does not make it unique.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#61228 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.
You do not know the Bible is the word of God. You choose to believe it is but you cannot choose for others.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61230 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>You are free to choose as you wish. Your free to burn in hell all you want..I dont want to so I will follow God and his will.
Holding hell over the head of anyone not willing to see your point of view is a bit harsh. Jesus didn't preach much about hell he taught love faith and seeking the lost. Oh and let us not other FORGIVENESS for everyone. People know hell for the most part teach love an forgiveness most people don't understand that.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61231 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to choose as you wish. Your free to burn in hell all you want..I dont want to so I will follow God and his will.
And you are yielding to a false threat. How can a nonexistent being put you in a nonexistent place?

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61232 Nov 26, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>And you are yielding to a false threat. How can a nonexistent being put you in a nonexistent place?
Oh which came first the chicken or the egg? It depends on what you believe right? If you believe evolution is right than the egg came first. However a creationist believes the chicken did. Yet even still my McNuggets Taste the same hmmmm God or a universe fart so it comes down to who's the better cook!

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61233 Nov 26, 2012
King of the hill comes on tonight followed by American dad followed by family guy. I know it's junk tv but I think it's too funny. Bet none of you guys thought a bible thumper watches junk tv. Ok this is the last off topic post ill make.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61234 Nov 26, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh which came first the chicken or the egg? It depends on what you believe right? If you believe evolution is right than the egg came first. However a creationist believes the chicken did. Yet even still my McNuggets Taste the same hmmmm God or a universe fart so it comes down to who's the better cook!
Since there is no hard dividing line between chicken and not chicken in evolution this is a rather nonsensical question.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61235 Nov 26, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Since there is no hard dividing line between chicken and not chicken in evolution this is a rather nonsensical question.
It was a joke. Very good this isn't a drop dead holding your side joke but a slight chuckle would be ok.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#61236 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to choose as you wish. Your free to burn in hell all you want..I dont want to so I will follow God and his will.
You are free to threaten whomever you wish with your superstitious mumbo jumbo.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61237 Nov 26, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a joke. Very good this isn't a drop dead holding your side joke but a slight chuckle would be ok.
ha.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61238 Nov 26, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
If I link articles that show Sanford is full of it will you shut up about him?
And yes, it is easy to show that those articles did not support Sanford's work. His work said there was a limit on evolution. Those articles were only about limiting the rate of evolution. Two totally different subjects.
If a vehicle is tethered to a post the distance it can go is determined by the tether. The vehicle may be able to go many different speeds, but it can only go to the end of its tether. The articles you linked were about the speed of evolution and how that speed, not the distance was limited. It said nothing about the limit of that speed so it supported Sanford in no way at all.
A limit to the rate of evolution IS a limit on evolution. The research has found another indirect way to support Sanfords general theme.

In your example I'd say it is more like saying evos expect the car to get going but have found that the car is tethered and actually limited in its ability to get going as it should and as expected.
Evolutinary researchers expected to find an increase in fitness from the accumulation of beneficial mutations. However they found was...“The more mutations the researchers added, the more they interfered with each other,” and that was one of the “surprising” results. Surprise! Surprise for evos, but not for creos.

So.....No I won't shut up just because you demonstrate you can post links and get someone else to do your dirty work for you.
One load of baseless rhetoric was about the mutation rate John used being adjusted way too low. Sandfords used a mutation rate of 100 per geration and this value has been found to align with more recent findings perfectly well.

The refutes you will find are from many years ago. Indeed NOW, after all the wofflers ridiculed Sanford low and behold recent research that supports Sanford.

This article speaks to Sanfords theory in brief.

http://advindicate.com/...

You'll note number 3....

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

What this work into epitasis has done is provide further research into the beneficial mutations, the evobuzz word, resulting in overwhelmingly negative results and a DROP in fitness, NOT an increase in fitness.

Although evolutionary researchers are not suggesting this research falsifies evolution, what it does do is support number 3 further by finding that an accumulation of even beneficial mutations will result in a drop in fitness and negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. In other words, even beneficial mutations do not stave off a deterioration in rates of adaptation over time. It is a deterioration even it does not directly relate.

Yet this declining rate of adaptation has continued for over 4 billion years without grinding to a halt? That is what a creo can extrapolated from that data.

Here is another creationist speak to the epitasis research and the implications it has for Johns work.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-de...

Here is the published research into epitasis. Note it is from 2011.

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

Mutation rate lower that thought in support of Sanfords value.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33...

The assertion has been made that creos are unable to provide any support for a creationist paradigm. Not only have creos had two predictions around non coding dna and vestigial organs supported they also have fossils that are out of alignment with TOE and more supportive of a creationist paradigm.

Now do please mount an appropriate refute to Sanfords work and present your evidence as I have bothered to do.

Thanx

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61239 Nov 26, 2012
In answer to your fist statement Maz, no a rate is not a limit. There is no limit to how far you can travel at 5 mph. In other words: Wrong try again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61240 Nov 26, 2012
Your link to the article about Sanford's work takes no time to get into a scientifically proven fallacy:

"1. Random mutations are bad—this point is generally agreed upon and is entirely logical if one acknowledges the fact that genes contain information. A mutation is a loss of information."

First, this is clearly not true. You have on the order of 150 mutations in your genome. The vast majority are benign. And no, a mutation is not necessarily a loss of information. In fact calling the genome "information" is a rather poor analogy. A better analogy is that the genome is a cookbook and a mutation is a change in directions.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61242 Nov 26, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>You are free to threaten whomever you wish with your superstitious mumbo jumbo.
No people should be free to voice their ideas with out us Christians saying our God is going to cast you into the fires of hell. Those kind of threats are just ridiculous as even those of us who follow the bible cant say who is and is not hell bound. Jesus said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Grrrrr that hell fire and damnation fear tactic religion makes me mad.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61243 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>A limit to the rate of evolution IS a limit on evolution. The research has found another indirect way to support Sanfords general theme.

In your example I'd say it is more like saying evos expect the car to get going but have found that the car is tethered and actually limited in its ability to get going as it should and as expected.
Evolutinary researchers expected to find an increase in fitness from the accumulation of beneficial mutations. However they found was...“The more mutations the researchers added, the more they interfered with each other,” and that was one of the “surprising” results. Surprise! Surprise for evos, but not for creos.

So.....No I won't shut up just because you demonstrate you can post links and get someone else to do your dirty work for you.
One load of baseless rhetoric was about the mutation rate John used being adjusted way too low. Sandfords used a mutation rate of 100 per geration and this value has been found to align with more recent findings perfectly well.

The refutes you will find are from many years ago. Indeed NOW, after all the wofflers ridiculed Sanford low and behold recent research that supports Sanford.

This article speaks to Sanfords theory in brief.

http://advindicate.com/...

You'll note number 3....

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

What this work into epitasis has done is provide further research into the beneficial mutations, the evobuzz word, resulting in overwhelmingly negative results and a DROP in fitness, NOT an increase in fitness.

Although evolutionary researchers are not suggesting this research falsifies evolution, what it does do is support number 3 further by finding that an accumulation of even beneficial mutations will result in a drop in fitness and negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. In other words, even beneficial mutations do not stave off a deterioration in rates of adaptation over time. It is a deterioration even it does not directly relate.

Yet this declining rate of adaptation has continued for over 4 billion years without grinding to a halt? That is what a creo can extrapolated from that data.

Here is another creationist speak to the epitasis research and the implications it has for Johns work.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-de...

Here is the published research into epitasis. Note it is from 2011.

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

Mutation rate lower that thought in support of Sanfords value.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33...

The assertion has been made that creos are unable to provide any support for a creationist paradigm. Not only have creos had two predictions around non coding dna and vestigial organs supported they also have fossils that are out of alignment with TOE and more supportive of a creationist paradigm.

Now do please mount an appropriate refute to Sanfords work and present your evidence as I have bothered to do.

Thanx
Ok not to sound to much like a noob here but what you're talking about is species A evolving into species B C and D up to some 100- 150 different species?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61244 Nov 26, 2012
I love it how Maz links articles that she thinks support her uneducated position. I wonder if she thinks that if you cannot fly from one city to another that you cannot drive from one of those cities to the other since the rate of travel would be too low.

Her last article is slightly interesting in that it claims that the average mutation per human generation is 30 to 50 mutations and not the 150 claimed by others earlier. It may be true, it may not be true. The author clearly did not think that this lower rate made human evolution impossible in any way.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61245 Nov 26, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
I love it how Maz links articles that she thinks support her uneducated position. I wonder if she thinks that if you cannot fly from one city to another that you cannot drive from one of those cities to the other since the rate of travel would be too low.

Her last article is slightly interesting in that it claims that the average mutation per human generation is 30 to 50 mutations and not the 150 claimed by others earlier. It may be true, it may not be true. The author clearly did not think that this lower rate made human evolution impossible in any way.
Ok so at that rate how long until we get our super x men powers?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61246 Nov 26, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so at that rate how long until we get our super x men powers?
Umm.... never. That sort of thing would only occur in a universe where ID was a reality.

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
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 3 min -ThatsAllFolks- 857
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... 4 min -ThatsAllFolks- 788
Word Association (Jun '10) 6 min -ThatsAllFolks- 27,320
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 6 min -ThatsAllFolks- 161,500
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 9 min -ThatsAllFolks- 8,365
News HuffPost Is In Deep, Weird Denial About Br... 10 min CharlieSays 5
motorcycle traveling stories 11 min Mega Monster 610
Things that make life eaiser... 1 hr TALLYHO 8541 145
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 3 hr Camilla 28,882
More from around the web