Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 218833 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.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#62811 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
That's all you say: garbage?
You have valid source to show me? Where are you getting your real science info? The four horsemen?
Yeah, creationism is total garbage. It cannot produce new knowledge, testable hypotheses or new technology.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#62812 Dec 3, 2012
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has been proven beyond any doubt to me, I don't share Charles beliefs, but he has the right to air them as we do
I don't disagree with you on that, but are you saying you don't see the flaws in what he wrote or the absurdity. It isn't even that he makes flawed and absurd statements, it is that he fully supports them as complete and factual truth.

Are we not allowed to comment on that or remark on the absurdity. Can he be rude and we are supposed to take it. Are you the police on here. Are you monitoring, policing and sensoring our dialogue? We are both from a liberal democracy, shouldn't I be able to make my discussion robust where it is required?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#62813 Dec 3, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't but it makes sense. Take the gene that causes sickle cell anemia. And genes are more than just dominant and recessive, like most early discoveries it does not quite tell the whole story. If you have one of the sickle cell genes it increases your resistance to the malaria parasite. If you have two it increase, but does not guarantee, that you will get sickle cell anemia. When this mutation first appeared it greatly increased the survivability of people with a drawback. Too "much" of the gene could kill you. The population has slowly been changing with the sickle cell prone not reproducing or being less successful in raising their children and their numbers have slowly been going down. The recessive nature of the gene let it do its good work while the population as a whole adjusted to its bad effects.
I actually am doing some work on a gene that is involved in malaria defense in some populations. Another friend of mine is working on G6PD in an indigenous group in Thailand.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#62814 Dec 3, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
Regards the newgeology.us site
<quoted text>
Didn't seem to me to be total garbage. I only took a quick superficial look, but even if it were all just crafty misdirection, it sure would be a good test for anyone who thought they had understood evolutionary theory, to find out if they really understood it. Wish I had time for it.
You want to learn more about evolution or more about how creationists misunderstand it?

If you want to learn science, read science. Creationists aren't giving you science information, they're giving you religious information.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#62815 Dec 3, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
To simplify its easier for a evo to call you stupid or ignorant than admit they don't know.
I did not call you stupid. In point of fact, we are all ignorant about almost everything. I happen to know more about biological science then you do. That's not an insult unless your measure of a person is based on their ability to understand biological science.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#62816 Dec 3, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
This article speaks briefly to this:
http://news.yahoo.com/cognitive-big-bang-disc...
"(Normally, if a mutation crops up in a gene that's critical to an animal's survival, evolution will weed out that animal, which usually means very little change occurs in critical genes. But if there are two copies of a gene, then the animal has a spare functioning copy, which allows those genes to rack up more mutations — both beneficial, harmful and neutral — without reducing survival fitness.)"
Thanks!

I think you'll enjoy this:

http://evmedreview.com/...

I subscribe to this:

http://evmedreview.com/

It's free!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62817 Dec 3, 2012
Orriapa paquia wrote:
<quoted text>
So your answer is an analogy of chicago?
I thought evolutionists were about quoting science and evidence?
I tell you repeatedly you have no evidence to show on the origin of life/cell to support evolution which is key to evolution and your answer is that it just happened? You give a website reference with no scientific experiments on it just essays and theories???
Science is about facts you can prove or have a body unequivocal body of evidence, not about conjectures.
So if you cant provide science or evidence what is the difference between your beliefs and creationists then?
Yes, you were too stupid to understand the straight forward truth so I tried to teach you with an analogy.

It seems even that was below your comfort level intelectually.

And please, don't try to change the argument after the fact.

You kept saying a stupid thing, that we had to understand where DNA came from to understand evolution. I kept correcting you and pointing out that was not the fact. You kept whining on so I showed you what work has been done on abiogenesis and you lied about the site.

Then you went back to your old busted DNA claim and I tried to make it as simple as possible for you to understand.

How simple do I have to make this for you?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62818 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually am doing some work on a gene that is involved in malaria defense in some populations. Another friend of mine is working on G6PD in an indigenous group in Thailand.
Well then you know far more about this than I ever will. I just thought the malaria mutation was a very good example of the article you brought up.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#62819 Dec 3, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you don't know what conjecture means. Or you did not understand that website. Much of the work HAS been done, not all of it has been done.
And no, knowledge of where DNA comes from is not needed for the theory of evolution.
Here is an analogy that should be simple enough even for you. Think of evolution as a trip through history. Now let's compare it to an actual trip. Say that you are making a trip across the country. It starts somewhere on the West Coast. Maybe Seattle, maybe L.A., we don't know. We know that it did go through Chicago and we know where the trip went to pretty much from there. Is it necessary to know where the trip went before Chicago to know where the trip went after Chicago?
Acquiring DNA is our Chicago. That is where the theory of evolution starts from, we don't need to know where the trip went before Chicago now, do we.
What? lol

DNA is our CHI long time AGO. hahahaha!

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#62820 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So why don't we just cut the BS and point out something from the article that you think is not true and correct it with scientific facts. Just one at least?
This is a problem with that article. It admits that bacteria evolve but claims that "macro evolution" never happens. Their sentence is: "But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria."

They subsequently write " In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies."

That's a poor way to think about it since bacteria have evolved into new species of bacteria in the lab and fruit flies have evolved into new species of fruit flies. Also, there was an experiment done in 1972 that produced an entire new species out of two species - an example of coevolution - an amoeba and it's bacterial parasite were housed together for 5 years. The two merged and became symbiotic.

Anyways, it's a poor way to think because it's not specific. Science requires the use of very specific language to understand what's going on. When an E. coli strain in the lab evolves the ability to digest citric acid, that's a brand new species. No E. coli in nature can digest citric acid.

That's how creationists are confused - they use general categories of species rather that more specific determinants. In doing that, they erase information and make biological science silly and unknowable.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#62821 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So why don't we just cut the BS and point out something from the article that you think is not true and correct it with scientific facts. Just one at least?
Here's another false sentence:

"Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance."

Mutations don't work like short-circuits, so presenting this as some kind of analogy is poor and misleading.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62822 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You want to learn more about evolution or more about how creationists misunderstand it?
If you want to learn science, read science. Creationists aren't giving you science information, they're giving you religious information.
Hey, I want to learn more about how creationist misunderstand it.

Don't start just yet, I am going to the liquor store to get a couple of liters of Bourbon to help with the thinking process. I figure if you want to think like a creationist you need to drink like a creationist.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#62823 Dec 3, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
It is the truth you don't have to like it nor do you have to comment on it.
If it walks like a duck sounds like a duck looks and smells like a duck it a very young dinosaur? NO IT'S A DUCK! If what I posted doesn't sound like the world we live in to you it's because it's talking about you.
Then, if you don't mind, it sounds like you have a smug belief that your gut feelings are far superior to anyone elses feelings or rational observations. There's no great truth in that kind of "street smarts". It's old-news bigotry.

Since: Sep 12

Dallas, TX

#62824 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>I did not call you stupid. In point of fact, we are all ignorant about almost everything. I happen to know more about biological science then you do. That's not an insult unless your measure of a person is based on their ability to understand biological science.
Calm down I didn't say you called me stupid. My post was half joking a bit of a jab at you evos for never just saying "i don't know" that's all it's ok.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#62825 Dec 3, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then you know far more about this than I ever will. I just thought the malaria mutation was a very good example of the article you brought up.
It is, it is!

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#62826 Dec 3, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, I want to learn more about how creationist misunderstand it.
Don't start just yet, I am going to the liquor store to get a couple of liters of Bourbon to help with the thinking process. I figure if you want to think like a creationist you need to drink like a creationist.
hahaha, have a drink for me!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62827 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
What? lol
DNA is our CHI long time AGO. hahahaha!
And another analogy flies over your head at 20,000 feet.

Does anyone know how to explain to these dolts that a knowledge of how DNA formed has nothing to do with evolution?
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#62828 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm reinventing my avatar? what's that supposed to mean?
So we cannot predict the future by observing the past? That's actually hard to believe especially in science.
As in you've played out your hand under one sign-on, now you're trying out a new sign-on but with the same old rhetoric. The arguments are too familiar, too much meaningless obstructionism. You've played and lost this debate many times before, but still aren't being honest about your real goal.

An avatar is a face you wear while you hide your own face. You've picked a kind of ironic one, the warrior she-kitty among the Christians of the future. I wonder if you have any idea just how many levels of irony you've stumbled into.

You know, movies like that really tick me off when they create false images of the Native Americans that just become fantasies for spoiled brats.
Orriapa paquia

Lubbock, TX

#62829 Dec 3, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you were too stupid to understand the straight forward truth so I tried to teach you with an analogy.
It seems even that was below your comfort level intelectually.
And please, don't try to change the argument after the fact.
You kept saying a stupid thing, that we had to understand where DNA came from to understand evolution. I kept correcting you and pointing out that was not the fact. You kept whining on so I showed you what work has been done on abiogenesis and you lied about the site.
Then you went back to your old busted DNA claim and I tried to make it as simple as possible for you to understand.
How simple do I have to make this for you?
Wow subduction zone!!, so you dont have any evidence or scientific data to present or quote or point to that you have to resort to name calling.
You think im stupid because i put forth a point you cant answer and you have danced around the issue without being able to honestly say you have no clue or answer.
So how then i am to discuss with you other points if you cant be honest and say you have no answer?
Isn't that how rational and intelligent discussion occurs?
Just say i dont know!!
So i guess you have no answer then. Why not be honest and state you dont have all the facts and understanding of the matter?
I g

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#62830 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, creationism is total garbage. It cannot produce new knowledge, testable hypotheses or new technology.
Yah you just proved my point. The link I posted had references. Nothing about religion. I guess you can't provide scientific facts to disprove other scientists who have debunked evolution. I thought you were knowledgeable in biological sciences?

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 "follow the word" (Jun '08) 2 min -Papa-Smurf- 48,719
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 3 min andet1987 6,182
Post any FOUR words (Feb '16) 6 min andet1987 2,972
One Word (Jan '09) 12 min -Papa-Smurf- 18,208
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 14 min andet1987 45,982
Words "with more than one meaning" (Sep '12) 23 min andet1987 822
Back in the day...... 28 min wichita-rick 97
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 44 min Go to hell 68,569
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 58 min wichita-rick 210,058
News Trump's Dark, Weird, Inaugural Campaign Speech 4 hr A TROLL NAMED SLACK 84
News Thousands of demonstrators protest Trump in Atl... 4 hr Aquarius-wy 94
More from around the web