Evolution vs. Creation

There are 162190 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 No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61270 Nov 27, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
There's talk that humans and Neanderthal had a common ancestor...Homo-heidelbergensi s. This goes back Maaaaany years, but I don't think 200 million years....but I've been wrong before:-) I think the currant thought is about <10 million years
Modern humans (Homo-sapiens) go back to around 200,000 years
Also you might want to see the latest edition New Scientists. There's some new data coming out that pushes back some of our ancestors...way back.
Yeah, I sort of missed a "not" in there on the million one. lol

200,000 sounds closer to what I recall from the latest. I just hope we don't run out of things to find before I die, it's all moving so fast now.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61271 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I can demonstrate an evolutionist that requires more substantiation from a creationist than they have ever been able to supply themselves and possible a hypocrite. Let's see!.
Evolutionists have no idea what the term demonstrate 'scientifically' means.
No, I said you demonstrate the limits, don't quote something that is unsubstantiated or unverified. If you cannot come up with something that has passed peer review and been tested and verified by multiple, independent, sources then give your answer. Without a limit then there is no "macro" or "micro" divide, there is no end to the possible changes of a population, there is no need to invoke magic at all. Without the limits no god is required to produce the amount of diversity we see today, only time, and we know there was plenty of time.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#61273 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I can demonstrate an evolutionist that requires more substantiation from a creationist than they have ever been able to supply themselves and possible a hypocrite. Let's see!.
Evolutionists have no idea what the term demonstrate 'scientifically' means.
Evos demonstrated this with all their woffle around junk dna and non coding dna and the huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions that have been falsified.
Then they cop out by saying creos hit on their process of scientific progress all the while meaning evos presentd hog wash as evidence in the first place.
In case you have not picked it up yet limits are found in Sanfords work on genetic entropy that you have evaded, results from research into epitasis and a fossil record of species that indeed did not adapt. There's a boot load of research into some species ability to somatically adjust to climate change and a truck load that suggests they migrate to their limit and then go extinct. That is what some of the fuss is about.
There appears to be more data that supports an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt than supports an unlimited ability to adapt.
Now you can show everyone how clever you are by speaking to all that mythical and misrepresented evidence you can offer for an organisms ability to adapt limitlessly.
Hence evos are often hypocrites in demanding a higher level of substantiation from creos than they ever can supply.
My bet is you'll side wind, evade, ignore, go quack at what I have presented and basically do anything except provide any support at all for an organisms limitless adaptability.
Yo Maz!

Just a question...

Ever taken drugs?

“cdesign proponentsists”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#61274 Nov 27, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't fault you for your honesty.
Can you imagine, a supreme being, the creator of all, requiring you, the created, to do anything for it?

Can you imagine this supreme being requiring you to preform rituals to please it?

How f'ing stupid are you?

What do you require of your child?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61275 Nov 27, 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
Ö
deleted for topic space restrictions see http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q... for full text
Ö
The way the universe is expanding is proven and measurable, just because it to big a concept for your minute mentality is no ones fault but your own

Lets not forget that is ancient history, the actual event does now make sense, the maths of Dr Param Singh alleviates the problems of infinities and now scientists are daring to calculate what happened BEFORE the event. www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ .

Lets also not forget the physics of the event is a logical and natural progression of the observations of Edwin Hubble in the 1930s. Itís one of the most fundamental cosmological findings ever and given the colossal sums spent on research you would think a flaw (any flaw) would have been found by now. You also must remember that not only is it proven there is essential technology that calculates the expansion of the universe into itís output, GPS for example.

What are you babbling about? Outer edge of the bubble? Is Santa not coming to you this Christmas?

Methinks you need to rephrase that 96% matter to be energy phrase. First think about what you are trying to say. Matter is not energy, matter is made from energy and in time will atrophy to its former state.

However 83% of the universe has already been found to be dark ďmatterĒ, Sloan Digital Sky Survey http://www.sdss.org/ and yet only a few years ago dark matter was just a theory to explain a mathematical inconsistency. Now it can be indirectly observed and measured, you obviously donít keep up with scientific progress

The event is only problematic to the godbots, there is no problem with the fact, the problem is the reasons and there are at least 27 theories that I know of to explain that reason and you can count on the fact that none of them claim goddidit. The work of Dr Param Singh allows these theories to be mathematically investigated.

That is not a theory, it is a guess, dark matter exists, the universe is expands from all points and therefore nowhere is the centre.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativ...
Or you could argue that everywhere is the centre. Either way it most certainly does not centre on an insignificant ball of rock about three quarters of the way out on he western spiral arm of one galaxy of billions of galaxies, thatís just your own massive godmadeyou ego that makes you think that.

I have looked up you Wallace g smith and cannot seem to find any accreditation or mainstream support for his blogs so we can only assume that you are citing an un peer reviewed godbot blogger as your source, well done

You will also notice my links are to educational and scientific establishments, not blogs

The predicted afterglow is called the CMB or cosmic microwave background, that too can be measured http://crd-legacy.lbl.gov/~borrill/cmb/planck... .

No it wonít be very publicised because as yet because it is incomplete work, the simplest explanation is that all three required ingredients, light, object and observer are in the correct order to form a shadow.

No scientist believed the earth is in a special position, only godbots have that dream.

Andromeda is moving towards earth at about 400,000 kph, what god would allow a cosmic event like galaxies colliding wipe out his creation?

A few percent of the observable universe is moving contrary to the general expansion, not only andromeda. The work of Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton helps explain this as well as other anomalies observable in our universe

Although I am not a cosmologist it is one of my hobbies and I can pretty much guarantee I know considerably more actual fact on the subject than a godbot creationist who is only hoping to find errors and loopholes

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#61276 Nov 27, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The way the universe is expanding is proven and measurable, just because it to big a concept for your minute mentality is no ones fault but your own
Lets not forget that is ancient history, the actual event does now make sense, the maths of Dr Param Singh alleviates the problems of infinities and now scientists are daring to calculate what happened BEFORE the event. www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ .
Lets also not forget the physics of the event is a logical and natural progression of the observations of Edwin Hubble in the 1930s. Itís one of the most fundamental cosmological findings ever and given the colossal sums spent on research you would think a flaw (any flaw) would have been found by now. You also must remember that not only is it proven there is essential technology that calculates the expansion of the universe into itís output, GPS for example.
What are you babbling about? Outer edge of the bubble? Is Santa not coming to you this Christmas?
Methinks you need to rephrase that 96% matter to be energy phrase. First think about what you are trying to say. Matter is not energy, matter is made from energy and in time will atrophy to its former state.
However 83% of the universe has already been found to be dark ďmatterĒ, Sloan Digital Sky Survey http://www.sdss.org/ and yet only a few years ago dark matter was just a theory to explain a mathematical inconsistency. Now it can be indirectly observed and measured, you obviously donít keep up with scientific progress
The event is only problematic to the godbots, there is no problem with the fact, the problem is the reasons and there are at least 27 theories that I know of to explain that reason and you can count on the fact that none of them claim goddidit. The work of Dr Param Singh allows these theories to be mathematically investigated.
That is not a theory, it is a guess, dark matter exists, the universe is expands from all points and therefore nowhere is the centre.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativ...
Or you could argue that everywhere is the centre. Either way it most certainly does not centre on an insignificant ball of rock about three quarters of the way out on he western spiral arm of one galaxy of billions of galaxies, thatís just your own massive godmadeyou ego that makes you think that.
I have looked up you Wallace g smith and cannot seem to find any accreditation or mainstream support for his blogs so we can only assume that you are citing an un peer reviewed godbot blogger as your source, well done
You will also notice my links are to educational and scientific establishments, not blogs
The predicted afterglow is called the CMB or cosmic microwave background, that too can be measured http://crd-legacy.lbl.gov/~borrill/cmb/planck... .
No it wonít be very publicised because as yet because it is incomplete work, the simplest explanation is that all three required ingredients, light, object and observer are in the correct order to form a shadow.
No scientist believed the earth is in a special position, only godbots have that dream.
Andromeda is moving towards earth at about 400,000 kph, what god would allow a cosmic event like galaxies colliding wipe out his creation?
A few percent of the observable universe is moving contrary to the general expansion, not only andromeda. The work of Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton helps explain this as well as other anomalies observable in our universe
Although I am not a cosmologist it is one of my hobbies and I can pretty much guarantee I know considerably more actual fact on the subject than a godbot creationist who is only hoping to find errors and loopholes
Yo Christine

MazHere is an obvious spambot.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61277 Nov 27, 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.
Ahh right so I see you have found 2 links that are irrelevant to you position and hoped I would nit notice.

FYI, junk DNA is misnamed and a term only used by godbots because they have not actual facts to hang on to.

It is known that the misnamed junk DNA which doesnít code for proteins actually provides the instructions for the construction and operation of cellular systems.

Junk DNA Not Junk After All
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/2500...

Chartings work? What is that? The reason they have to disguise there work is because without the subterfuge they cannot justigy their work, even with the subterfuge there has be no creationist work (N O N E) to date that has in any way benefited science or humanity.

Now for your links, you obviously have not read the content of the papers but seen the titles and thought wahooo, something I can use. I suggest you actually read the papers and take them in the context of laboratory experiments under laboratory conditions before making false claims about them.

What has been proven here is that inbreeding is never successful, this we know, are your father and mother brother and sister?

Ok you have made yourself clear, you have a belief but are too clueless to actually understand it and question it so hunt for any hint of agreement to justify you own belief.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61278 Nov 27, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Yo Christine
MazHere is an obvious spambot.
A total tosser but itís fun exposing her

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#61279 Nov 27, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
A total tosser but itís fun exposing her
Something that applies to Maz, Yellodog, Sir Doctor, Timesten, Bongo and all those idiots:

"Reality has a liberal bias" - Stephen Colbert

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61280 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I can demonstrate an evolutionist that requires more substantiation from a creationist than they have ever been able to supply themselves and possible a hypocrite. Let's see!.
Evolutionists have no idea what the term demonstrate 'scientifically' means.
Evos demonstrated this with all their woffle around junk dna and non coding dna and the huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions that have been falsified.
Then they cop out by saying creos hit on their process of scientific progress all the while meaning evos presentd hog wash as evidence in the first place.
In case you have not picked it up yet limits are found in Sanfords work on genetic entropy that you have evaded, results from research into epitasis and a fossil record of species that indeed did not adapt. There's a boot load of research into some species ability to somatically adjust to climate change and a truck load that suggests they migrate to their limit and then go extinct. That is what some of the fuss is about.
There appears to be more data that supports an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt than supports an unlimited ability to adapt.
Now you can show everyone how clever you are by speaking to all that mythical and misrepresented evidence you can offer for an organisms ability to adapt limitlessly.
Hence evos are often hypocrites in demanding a higher level of substantiation from creos than they ever can supply.
My bet is you'll side wind, evade, ignore, go quack at what I have presented and basically do anything except provide any support at all for an organisms limitless adaptability.
Are you really this stupid?

Creationists CANNOT supply any level of substantiation
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#61281 Nov 27, 2012
At the risk of starting it all over, I think we finally silenced the zealotry of you-know-who!

Now, I wonder if we can take MazHere's junk science away from her before she beheads herself with it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61282 Nov 27, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Holding hell over the head of anyone not willing to see your point of view is a bit harsh.
Indeed, in fact it's the very height of hubris. C-L has no more clue about who goes up or down at the end of the day than anyone else does. He should beware his actions as I'm sure he wouldn't want to be unpleasantly surprised at the end and find himself consigned to the depths with all us heathens.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61283 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Surprise for evos, but not for creos.
Everything is a surprise to creos, since they can't make any valid predictions. You keep trotting out the creationist lie about junk DNA. Yet according Sanford himself creationism predicts junk DNA. While you predict 100% function. Neither of these even matter to creo's since any and all problems are fixed with the "scientific mechanism" of Jewmagic. It doesn't matter that you contradict yourself six ways from Sunday, the ONLY prediction you make is that "Evilushun iz rong therefore JEWMAGIC!"

And maybe it is. But you sure ain't gonna demonstrate it by spouting inconsistent creationist apologetics.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
Now do please mount an appropriate refute to Sanfords work and present your evidence as I have bothered to do.
Thanx
Done. You're welcome.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61284 Nov 27, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
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.
And the LAST thing creos want is to limit evolution when talking about Genesis or Noah. Oh well, back to the drawing board for Maz.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61285 Nov 27, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so at that rate how long until we get our super x men powers?
Evolution is not goal-directed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61286 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
You have now demonstrated without doubt that you don't know a heck of a lot about this stuff. For a start it is fairly common knowledge that most,70%, of mutations are deleterious. That is not knew info at all.
Oh the irony. Actually most are neutral. That's why people born with serious debilitating mutations that have a detrimental effect on their ability to reproduce are the exception, and not the rule. Also it doesn't matter even if you are right, since you've already admitted beneficial mutations happen, ergo they will naturally spread through the population quicker than deleterous ones. This is supported by the fact of current human diversification and increasing population levels, and that Sanford's anti-reality YEC apologetics still can't give us a date for genomic critical mass. Which by the way contradicts YECism anyway
MazHere wrote:
The vast majority are not benign, we are meant to have had millions of mutations in the genome since we were fury apes, and a mutation quite often results in a loss of information
ONLY when bases are lost. This is not the norm for mutations. You are using "information" incorrectly, but thanks for pointing out the reference disagreed with you and hence doesn't support you.
MazHere wrote:
Also, you do realize don't you, that all this is based on computer modelling, algorithmic magic and many assumptions, and yet you are still incorrect and have not refuted even point one, let alone point 3 which is the one the epitasis research more refers to.
In summation, you got everything wrong; so you're welcome to try again.
On the contrary, we've pointed out not only why reality contradicts you, but your own assertions contradict each other. You cannot possibly hope to debunk science in such a manner. And you never address anything at all. Doesn't stop you from being dishonest and spouting off BS anyway.

So what's the "scientific theory" of creationism? How long till you realize that your own position (Jewmagic) completely obliterates anything you try here?

Keep skipping skippy.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#61287 Nov 27, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is not goal-directed.
Nobody told Stan Lee that. In the comic book universe, everyone who gets hit with radiation, injected with toxins, or is the victim of a bad upbringing gains super powers. Nobody actually dies from exposure to harsh conditions.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61288 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
If by they, you mean creos, adaptation is not of any concern.
Of course not. You're a creationist.(shrug)

That means legitimate scientific problems to your own position are all fixed by Jewmagic. Which is non-demonstrable and therefore not scientific. Hence science is not your concern.
MazHere wrote:
The point is that adaptation is limited and not limitless as I have been arguing all day, just in case you have picked that obvious fact up yet.
Of course it's limited. But as SD pointed out that slowing adaptation doesn't prevent it from going further. You need it to stop entirely or otherwise any point you make is worthless. You also need it to carry on at a much faster rate than evolution to account for your Genesis and Flood scenarios. Since you can't address your inconsistencies your assertions can be considered fiction.
MazHere wrote:
You also have a fossil record of species that were unable to adapt
Yes, extinctions are numerous. We also have a fossil record that demonstrates a distinctive evolutionary change.
MazHere wrote:
not to speak of the data on climate change.
Why do you hate kittens?
MazHere wrote:
Immunity and an ability to adapt to a changing environment is adaptation that evolutionists call evolution because they need it to be and they need it to be limitless.
Wrong, since if mutations occur at too high a rate then that would destroy all life. Creationism needs it to be limitless as this is exactly what it needs, just without all of the problems that go with it.
MazHere wrote:
However, during ones lifetime one accumulates mutations, immunity, epigentic somatic changes that are inheritable, can acclimatize relatively easily to different climates an diets, and yet evolutionists do not suggest those changes refers to an individual adapting or evolving.
No, individuals don't evolve. Populations do. The environment applies pressure on populations, and populations that are unable to adapt will be at a survival disadvantage, or may even be wiped out completely. If they are not then evolution can continue. And if there is life, there is evolution.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61289 Nov 27, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so Adam and Eve may have been smurfs. Just kidding. I have never seen that as evolution but as adaptation does the DNA change. Also if man comes from ape than would our natural instinct to live in groups have been the same than as it is today? Please phrase your answers for novice level.
Social behaviors can change over time, but many apes do live in groups also. In fact there are relatively few who are solitary.

By the way, humans ARE apes. And it was a creationist who pointed it out (laying down the foundations for evolution and by extention modern biology as he did so).
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61290 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So you want to demonstrate your ignorance by asking me a ridiculously simple question instead of addressing the substance of my post.
A mutation is a change in sequence.
... and therefore not an "information loss". Duh.

I have a few ridiculously simple questions for ya:

What's the "scientific theory" of creationism?

How come you constantly ignore the blatant inconsistencies of your own position?

Why do you always lie and ignore anything theologically inconvenient?

Remember, God is watching...

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) 6 min Roy 161,951
News $700,000 worth of antique cars discovered in a ... 20 min Spotted Girl 1
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... 32 min I Am No One_ 830
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 34 min I Am No One_ 923
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 46 min Roy 8,443
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 1 hr Grace Nerissa 2,230
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Roy 40,325
Things that make life eaiser... 1 hr Karl Rover 311
News Study: Beards are filled with poop and 'as dirt... 2 hr ZZTop 49
More from around the web