Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 171930 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 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62907 Dec 3, 2012
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
Be fair man, Charles has only ever been polite, why are people ganging up on him and insulting him, it doesn't matter if you are Christian or not, there is no need for the aggression that some have displayed, constitution lover was deserving of insults, but Charles and bat foy have always been polite and should be treated fairly
Thanks.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#62908 Dec 3, 2012
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Birds are warm blooded.
Woops, that's right, I must have been half asleep!

Birds are warm blooded and dinos are cold blooded, a big difference!

I'll fix it.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62909 Dec 3, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Charles isn't always polite. I direct you to the fact that he called me "Buffoon." I just turned it around a bit. I like Charles despite his often strange ideas and I have never been unkind to Bat Foy to my knowledge. He may be able to contradict that but I hope not. There are others for whom, I will make no appologies for my behavior.
Your biased statements and use of language, led me to use that word.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62910 Dec 3, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Woops, that's right, I must have been half asleep!
Birds are warm blooded and dinos are cold blooded, a big difference!
I'll fix it.
Nope, dinosaurs were warm blooded too.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62911 Dec 3, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Facts are facts. They don't differ. If they did, nothing would be real.
Truth and Facts are two different words, not really meaning the same thing. Truth prevails over facts.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#62912 Dec 3, 2012
Orriapa paquia wrote:
<quoted text>
I see how you cant answer any question or bring forth any scientific citation despite multiple requests.
I see how you havent put forth any scientific citation
I see how you call me stupid when you cant understand that without DNA there is no evolution period!!
Have you not understood that?
Let me spell it out for you:
Without cell replication there is no cell alive period!
Without DNA there is no cell replication!! period!!.
DNA is the most complex and densely packed and elaborate information storage device known to man!!
So explain to me Subduction zone how you will not explain DNA if it is the foundation of cell replication.
Please just quote the scienctific citations so that individuals with less IQ such as me can just look at the data. Spare me your analogies as they obviously are to complex for me. Just provide me the data
Also comment on Richard dawkins statements aboutthe existance of aliens and the scientific evidence to support it. Being that evolutionists are all about science
You know the same can be said of a lot of biological phenomenon that have been heavily characterized and study over the years. The point is that you don't need to be able to pin point an abiogenesis event in order to study these biological systems. You don't need to characterize the abiogenesis event to make numerous discoveries about biological phenomenon. In fact, scientist have made literally thousands of observations and discoveries about biological phenomenon without reference to abiogenesis or when the first cell came about. That includes all we know about evolution.

Your mischaracterization that evolution hangs on the thread of our lack of knowledge about the formation of the first cells is an illogical argument. If it were true, then the whole of biology would hang on that same thread.

Ecology for instance, doesn't hang on a thread because of your "oh so critical knowledge of this cellular progenator" and many important discoveries have been made in that field and continue to be made.

Evolution too, does not need it to be characterized, studied and supported.

Do you somehow think that in order to drive a car, describe that car, and work on that car, you need to know when, where, by whom and how many people it was made. If you do, well, this forum is not where you need to seek help.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62913 Dec 3, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he hasn't.
Just like, " Truth", and, " Lies ". They must always be parrallel to each other.
I don't subscribe to liars.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#62914 Dec 3, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Your biased statements and use of language, led me to use that word.
And your biased and confused statements have inspired me to use the words I choose.

But it isn't to say that I don't enjoy some good banter with you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62915 Dec 3, 2012
Of course we have had evidence for quite some time that dinosaurs were warm blooded. There are the feathers that have been found on many dinosaurs. Feathers were probably originally for heat regulation. That along with studies of dinosaur kinematics that indicated it needed warm blood to move as fast as they did. This article is only one of many, it is perhaps the most recent bit of evidence found that supports warm blooded dinosaurs:

http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Dinosau...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62916 Dec 3, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You know the same can be said of a lot of biological phenomenon that have been heavily characterized and study over the years. The point is that you don't need to be able to pin point an abiogenesis event in order to study these biological systems. You don't need to characterize the abiogenesis event to make numerous discoveries about biological phenomenon. In fact, scientist have made literally thousands of observations and discoveries about biological phenomenon without reference to abiogenesis or when the first cell came about. That includes all we know about evolution.
Your mischaracterization that evolution hangs on the thread of our lack of knowledge about the formation of the first cells is an illogical argument. If it were true, then the whole of biology would hang on that same thread.
Ecology for instance, doesn't hang on a thread because of your "oh so critical knowledge of this cellular progenator" and many important discoveries have been made in that field and continue to be made.
Evolution too, does not need it to be characterized, studied and supported.
Do you somehow think that in order to drive a car, describe that car, and work on that car, you need to know when, where, by whom and how many people it was made. If you do, well, this forum is not where you need to seek help.
Oriappa does not do analogies.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#62917 Dec 3, 2012
Orriapa paquia wrote:
<quoted text>
So heres a summary for you:
I asked you to provide data: nothing
I asked you if you understood cell replication: nothing
I asked you if you understand evolution/natural selection: nothing
I asked you if you understand DNA: nothing
I asked you about R Dawkins: nothing
I guess now i can explain to others that the theory of evolution is explains DNA by a trip from Chicago to seattle. LOL!!!
Some sort of scientists evolutionists are that no one chimed in to help you out of your hole while you were getting educated.
Bye
I think the only thing Subduction Zone was being educated on is that there are a lot of stupid people out there that know a few technical terms and think that is the end all and be all of it.

Your questions are meaningless. Understand what about these things. Here are some good answers that are correct. I will answer them in order that they appear in your post above.

My post is data.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
He is a scientist in England.
I don't know what you mean by the theory of evolution explaining DNA, do you?

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#62918 Dec 3, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oriappa does not do analogies.
What is that anyway? Oriappa, is that Spanish for butthole?

Like many anti-science whackos they attack some meaningless point and if you can't answer they declare themselves the winner. I am not completely sure what he was on about. Seems very angry. I hope he doesn't own a gun, but his ISP is Texas so not much hope there.
60s chic

Bethlehem, PA

#62919 Dec 3, 2012


An interesting half hour video about the Permian mass extinction, of which there were 2.

"After the first mass extinction, it took around 100,000 yrs. for the earth to recover. When it did, a new family of creatures ruled the world. This was the birth of the age of the dinosaurs.
One of the strange half mammal half reptile animals of the Permian world did manage to survive - a cow sized plant eater. It was the ancestor of all mammals and so ultimately of us."

How accurate this research is, I don't know, anymore than I know what's true in the Bible. I will say though that based upon their discoveries and research, it's much more logical as to where we humans came from. Sorry, but the story of Adam and Eve sounds way too far-fetched for me. I'm not saying there isn't a superior power that created the earth and universe that began it all. I really don't know anymore than anyone else does. I find it very difficult to believe that a vast population like ours, and the ones before it, are the result of the only 2 people who were suppose to have first inhabited this planet. So that would make the garden of Eden and the Serpent also fiction. It's a nice story, but not very believable in my opinion. In fact, even as a child, I was skeptical about the Genesis story, but we were strongly discouraged from disagreeing.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#62920 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So what species did the E Coli bacteria that grew on citrate in aerobic environment evolve into? So increase in cell size and fitness and diversity in this bacteria is evidence for the evolution of 'bacteria'. There is no mention of bacteria evolving into a something non bacteria or did I miss anything.
I hope you are not one who would continue to move the goal posts during the course of a discussion. How about saying what you think would be the minimum degree of speciation that would satisfy you for a laboratory demonstration of "real" evolution. Then let's look at whether it is likely that an experiment in a human lab could approach what you want of it, close enough to indicate what is possible in a world wide experiment over billions of years.

In this instance you seem to be asking to see evolution in a lab cross the boundaries of one of the 5 or 6 great kingdom by which life is classified. That's a lot harder than evolving a mouse into a monkey. Could you possibly be satisfied to just look at speciation by evolution within one of the kingdoms wherein the rapidity of succeeding generations is the fastest?

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#62921 Dec 3, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Truth and Facts are two different words, not really meaning the same thing. Truth prevails over facts.
Not sure what you are getting at. Truth is based on facts.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#62922 Dec 3, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
But given there are cells, and that there is DNA, and that it is a very dense source of information. Either by starting from there, or, like Darwin, just by inferring from other evidence that such a mechanism could account for the results he observed, one can certainly come to many other useful conclusions.
No harm in knowing more about how it all got started, whether it is possible that an even more rudimentary kind of evolution brought it about, or whether it was actually the hand of God that started it, either way there are lots of useful further predictions that one can make and then test for consistency.
Certainly, if one knew that God explicitly started the process, as opposed to it just being an inherent possibility of his initial creation, or if one could know for sure that there was no such force remotely like the God that we conceive of that did it, one might be able to refine one's predictions even more, but that might or might not add a lot to what the basic theory of evolution yields.
Certainly also, every facet of understanding exactly how DNA works might also yield further insights, but it's still possible that those refinements would not affect the broad picture. Never concluding, never discussing, never predicting until you know every detail down to the last quantum mechanical rule or the exact will and mood of God, might mean you never get to first base. It's like as if Newton had to wait for Einstein before he worked out the three laws of mechanics, and Einstein had to wait for Newton before he even considered relativity -- it would be a total impasse. So in that sense, your requirement for someone to know great detail about DNA to be able to talk about evolution, in that sense you are just obstructing and not helping.
Exactly.

Darwin put forth the Origin of Species without ever knowing anything about genes or genetics. Knowledge of that would come later further bolster evolution by natural selection.

This demand that all things be known before you can call something a discovery is just moving the goal post.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#62923 Dec 3, 2012
60s chic wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =wn62AjIpWMwXX
An interesting half hour video about the Permian mass extinction, of which there were 2.
"After the first mass extinction, it took around 100,000 yrs. for the earth to recover. When it did, a new family of creatures ruled the world. This was the birth of the age of the dinosaurs.
One of the strange half mammal half reptile animals of the Permian world did manage to survive - a cow sized plant eater. It was the ancestor of all mammals and so ultimately of us."
How accurate this research is, I don't know, anymore than I know what's true in the Bible. I will say though that based upon their discoveries and research, it's much more logical as to where we humans came from. Sorry, but the story of Adam and Eve sounds way too far-fetched for me. I'm not saying there isn't a superior power that created the earth and universe that began it all. I really don't know anymore than anyone else does. I find it very difficult to believe that a vast population like ours, and the ones before it, are the result of the only 2 people who were suppose to have first inhabited this planet. So that would make the garden of Eden and the Serpent also fiction. It's a nice story, but not very believable in my opinion. In fact, even as a child, I was skeptical about the Genesis story, but we were strongly discouraged from disagreeing.
Is that correct? 100,000 years doesn't seem like that long a time. I can't keep up with my extinctions without a score card.

I know what you mean. I was raised in a Baptist church, but I have always been very skeptical. I have found that the Bible is rife with inconsistencies and contradictions that make the consideration of a literal interpretation laughable to me. I do consider it to be a book full of much wisdom though and historical information.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#62924 Dec 3, 2012
Orriapa paquia wrote:
<quoted text>
A little too late for today,
Why are you fixated with creationism when you cant even explain or understand evolution?
I am more than willing to explore with you your last statement on the condition that you show some common decency and respect for others opinions and if you are wrong accept it. If not its just a waste of my time.
Ill see what your answer is tomorrow
The hypocrisy of your statements are not lost on me. You are using litany of logical fallacies to argue your point which in my mind is not only disrespectful, but shows a complete disregard for the intelligence of your opponent. Then you gobble on about common decency and respect for others. You must be a professional commedian.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#62925 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So what species did the E Coli bacteria that grew on citrate in aerobic environment evolve into? So increase in cell size and fitness and diversity in this bacteria is evidence for the evolution of 'bacteria'. There is no mention of bacteria evolving into a something non bacteria or did I miss anything. Because that would be the first thing that scientists would mention. Give it osmotic shock and that bacteria decreases its ability to survive for long periods.
Just because bacteria can become resistant to penicillin for example, doesn't mean it's going to evolve into something other than a bacteria.
WTF are you talking about? Yes, you did miss something. The whole point is that it grew on citrate in an aerobic environment; the fact that you can type that out verbatim shows that you did not investigate the issue and have no idea what you're talking about. Prior to this experiment, ecoli could not digest citric acid. The link you posted claimed that bacteria never changes into anything else. What constitutes "something else" to you? Do you want a dog to pop out of it? In a (relatively)*extremely* short time span, Ecoli was able to evolve the ability to digest citric acid. That is evolution.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#62926 Dec 3, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Truth and Facts are two different words, not really meaning the same thing. Truth prevails over facts.
That's an interesting distinction. Whether that fine a perspective matters for a given context should be examined carefully.

It's a fun distinction however. Lessee now, facts are generally discussed in terms of A is a B, or A has attribute B, or even just that "A is". So facts are almost indistinguishable from "truth values" in the logical/mathematical sense. Truth as an almost ultimate abstraction would seem to derive from the axioms of logic that are being assumed. I hope we all try to use the same rules of logic during a single discussion. I presume we allow derivative conclusions to be included in the realm of "facts". A fact might be the logical conclusion of a rigorous and complex chain of logic... or maybe not? What do you think? How do you see the distinction between "truths" and "facts"? How are facts different from what we might call "truth values"?

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
kiss of the century 14 min andet1987 63
Last Word is First Word (no "breast" word please) 23 min andet1987 172
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 30 min Brandiiiiiiii 4,926
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 35 min beatlesinafog 1,926
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 38 min beatlesinafog 5,768
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 39 min Bevy of Words 12,724
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 40 min beatlesinafog 2,567
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 49 min Wolftracks 167,259
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Wolftracks 42,112
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 5 hr Mr_FX 9,333
Dedicate a song (Jul '08) 6 hr SLY WEST 16,054
More from around the web