Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 171807 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 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#62927 Dec 3, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh very scientific...NOT!
Ruben suggests dinosaurs and birds have a common ancestor, meaning the common ancestor was not a dinosaur or a bird, but a glider of some sort.
If you are still stuggling and refuse to digest that some researchers disagree with the dino to bird theory then you are the one that is ignorant, not I. That is the point and you may struggle as much as you wish and get your jollies and that will still be factual. Rhuben took differences into account. That made all the difference!
Evolutionists look for similarities.
I look for differences.
There are many similarites amongst many organisms even those not closely related. These get evolutionary terms such as convergent evolution and morphological and genetic homoplasy.
When one needs to describe why a bear is not a dog, a dog is not a cat, a chimp is not a human, a whale is not a shark we do not discern them apart by the similarities. To do so would be illogical. We are more inclined to speak to the differences because these will more clearly differentiate one from another.
Evolutionists prefer to ignore the differences and look for the most ridiculously misguided similarities. Can anyone tell me why? A no brainer, really.
A bird has a reversed hallux, the thigh bone is largely fixed in place, birds are cold blooded not warm which is a big difference, birds have hollow bones, birds do not have teeth.
So although I only need only one trait, a reversed hallux, there are more differences.
Because I am not scratching around grabbing at any straw I can find to it appears that I have a heck of a lot less problems and convoluted scenarios than evos that are classifying by similarity.
You now have a bush that evos are so fed up with it I reckon that's why they want to be even vaguer and use cladistics.
Evolutionists are often silly enough to try and manipulate creationists into defining evolutionary terms. It is a sneaky way of giving their terms some validation.
Hence although evos speak in terms of derived and primative traits they are going to find more similarities to one species than another. That is inevitable. The inevitable does not demonstrate anything apart from desperation.
The point still remains that the modern bird footprints 212myo display the distinguishing feature of a bird, a reversed hallux. Evolutionists can squirm, and invent weird handed monsters or mythical theropods and still the simplest explanation is that they are just what they appear to be. Evolutionists simply will not take the data for what it is, as usual, and have to get out all their convolutions to explain it.
At least I can accept the data on the deteriorating genome as it stands, predict all dna and organs will be functional and be validated, and am clear what is or is not a bird.
So my 6 points still stand. No support or interpretation of DATA I present could possibly be worse, or more ridiculously complicated, than what evolutionists have on offer.
Subduction Zone. Have I missed your reply. Are you unable to futher justify your homolgy here?
I'd like to now throw the icing on the cake, which I generally like to save for latter.

Wiki has pictures of several Furcula (Wishbone) from theropods and of birds.

So here, something more the shape of a boomerang is 'the same' thing as a bone that is U shaped. None of them, including Arch, looks like a bird wishbone at all, except for Columba perhaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Furcula_evo...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furcula

At least a couple of you have a bit of a go, finally. So thanks.

My 6 points in support of creation are robust. Data on the deteriorating genome, negative epistasis, can be accepted without the need for complicating scenarios. Predictions made well in advance are being substantiated.

Nothing I present could be worse and more complicated than what you have to offer and I actually think creationism has the upper hand overall.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#62928 Dec 3, 2012
"...type that out verbatim without getting it.."

what I meant to say
60s chic

Bethlehem, PA

#62929 Dec 3, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>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 suppose, but that's what was stated in the video. You should watch it. Very interesting.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#62930 Dec 3, 2012
Professor wrote:
Even if evolution is true (and there is plenty of evidence to support it), scientists cannot explain how the very first cell came into existence.
After the Big Bang, the universe was sterile. SOMETHING happened to cause life to appear out of nothing.
Perhaps you have been away but I believe I have more than demonstrated that TOE is actually based on hubris.

The data supports creation. The hubris about the data supports evolution.

If you think TOE has any legs to stand on then you have been deluded as I have repeatedly demonstrated.

In actual fact, your first post on junk dna has been done to death.

Clearly, evolutionists do not know what they are talking about and will peddle misrepresentation as support for TOE.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#62931 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
And you're not being arrogant? Not only can you adapt but you can also outlive anyone in here. Wow.
I mention "adapt" and you think that's all there is to it in evolution.
So are you trying to argue that species that does not adapt to changing circumstances survive?

Okay.
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
You are stretching this a bit too far. I think because you still don't get it.
Aggh please. I know more about Paleontology in the Mesozoic Era, save for scholars and paleontologists in that very field.

Epic Fail. Care to try again?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#62932 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Who knows really?
Paleontogists, for one?

The earliest birds show up in the mid-Jurassic. The earliest eggs date back to the Devonian.

That is a three hundred million year gap from egg to bird.

Get a clue, will you?
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's just bury the hatchet. I mean hatch the eggs.
Lame.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#62933 Dec 3, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
We *DO* really know....with an extraordinary high degree of confidence. Dinosaurs laid eggs long before the first bird appeared on the scene.
As did the archosaurs, long before the dinosaurs, as did the amphibians, long before the reptillian archosaurs, as did the fish, long before the amphibians

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#62934 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Abduction Zone, you are right. I bet The Star Wars Explosion is as entertaining as the Cambrian Explosion.
You are about as funny as the Yellow Pages

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#62935 Dec 3, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Actually you have no idea what you are talking about.

One thing that does not constitute 'something else' is somatic change.

You mean the ecoli were able to adapt in the same way that Darwins finches adapted with different beak sizes, which were somatic changes.

http://testifyingtotruth.wordpress.com/2012/0...

I see evos cannot get with the hard stuff and as suspected are going to start chasing their tails again.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#62936 Dec 3, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you have been away but I believe I have more than demonstrated that TOE is actually based on hubris.
The data supports creation. The hubris about the data supports evolution.
If you think TOE has any legs to stand on then you have been deluded as I have repeatedly demonstrated.
In actual fact, your first post on junk dna has been done to death.
Clearly, evolutionists do not know what they are talking about and will peddle misrepresentation as support for TOE.
Poe.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#62937 Dec 3, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
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"?
You're confusing poor charles. Stop it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62938 Dec 3, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Subduction Zone. Have I missed your reply. Are you unable to futher justify your homolgy here?
I'd like to now throw the icing on the cake, which I generally like to save for latter.
Wiki has pictures of several Furcula (Wishbone) from theropods and of birds.
So here, something more the shape of a boomerang is 'the same' thing as a bone that is U shaped. None of them, including Arch, looks like a bird wishbone at all, except for Columba perhaps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Furcula_evo...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furcula
At least a couple of you have a bit of a go, finally. So thanks.
My 6 points in support of creation are robust. Data on the deteriorating genome, negative epistasis, can be accepted without the need for complicating scenarios. Predictions made well in advance are being substantiated.
Nothing I present could be worse and more complicated than what you have to offer and I actually think creationism has the upper hand overall.
Sorry. Wrong. Your so called 6 points have been debunked many times. Why do you still bother to post them here?

And another wall of nonsense.

I tell you what. If you have an actual point why don't you post that?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#62939 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
And you know exactly the first bird that appeared on the scene?
Once again, a question like that shows that you have no idea how to interpret fossil evidence.

That, in itself, is not a crime. My mother, bless her heart, she is a fine restaurateur, cannot interpret fossil evidence. Neither can my janitor interpret fossil evidence. Neither can the owner of the local supermarket, the beggar on the corner, nor the policeman who pulled me over yesterday.

No fault of theirs. Ignorance is not a crime.

You have demonstrated that you are clueless about the subject, but you choose to comment on it. Why? Do you enjoy looking stupid?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62940 Dec 4, 2012
By the way Maz, a transitional species is supposed to be between two different sorts of species. It seems to me that you are complaining that Archaeopteryx is in between that of birds and that of land based dinosaurs. In other words you are saying that it is a transitional species.

Am I the only one that sees this?

Archaeopteryx has bird features, dinosaur features, and features that are in between the two. Does this or doesn't this make it an almost perfect transitional fossil. It may actually be on an off branch, it still is very close to the transitional species that may or may not have been preserved in the fossil record.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#62941 Dec 4, 2012
Orriapa paquia wrote:
Subduction zone:
How can someone believe in evolution if you cannot say/explain how it all started?
If you cannot explain or prove the first step then what good is the rest?
That is a stupid line of argument. My car is in the garage. Do you need to SEE my car entering the garage, to conclude that I had parked it?
Orriapa paquia wrote:
In regards to the bible can you tell me where it says about evolution? id like to check it out
The Bible is an abvious myth.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#62942 Dec 4, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you have no idea what you are talking about.
One thing that does not constitute 'something else' is somatic change.
You mean the ecoli were able to adapt in the same way that Darwins finches adapted with different beak sizes, which were somatic changes.
http://testifyingtotruth.wordpress.com/2012/0...
I see evos cannot get with the hard stuff and as suspected are going to start chasing their tails again.
Good lord you are a Poe. Define somatic change.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#62943 Dec 4, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
what do you mean by "evolved" and not "innate?" The idea of evolution sounds like a natural phenomena or occurrence. How do you know that about extinct animals when you don't completely understand their DNA?
I didn't say animals choose a meteor to end their existence. If you buy a house do you choose to live in it if you know you'd die from a fallen tree? what exactly is your point.
As much garbage you tend to spew, I found this sentence particularly revealing:

"How do you know that about extinct animals when you don't completely understand their DNA?"

I cannot even begin to tell you what absurdly stupid line of reasoning this is.

Let me ask you a couple of questions:

1) Do you know what a fossil is?
2) Do you know how we determine its age?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#62944 Dec 4, 2012
Cybele wrote:
sorry I messed up on the quotes
Don't worry. We don't really you to very high standards

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#62945 Dec 4, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't think I did my own research? I have. It's no different than politics. You have the media telling you all kinds of stuff.
Nope. Your research, I am willing to bet my month's salary, is what "facts" you could get off Kent Hovind, Ken Ham or Answers In Genesis.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#62946 Dec 4, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I didn't say otherwise. Why did you feel you had to write this?
What part about my first two sentences is not reproduced in your paragraph?
I love it when you say things like 'reproduce'.

Say it again, will you? Indulge me.

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
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 7 min Grace Nerissa 2,560
Conundrum........a confusing and difficult prob... 42 min KNIGHT DeVINE 47
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 45 min TALLYHO 8541 42,102
" Tell me a secret"...... (Oct '14) 1 hr Secretive 516
True False Game (Jun '11) 1 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 9,905
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 1 hr Grace Nerissa 9,305
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 1 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 32,494
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Mister_ E 167,155
Dedicate a song (Jul '08) 2 hr Mister_ E 16,032
Is T O P I X slipping? 3 hr greymouser 25
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 5 hr KNIGHT DeVINE 12,705
More from around the web