Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
59,081 - 59,100 of 114,780 Comments Last updated 16 min ago
Caylee not forgotten

Bethlehem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63210
Dec 4, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree the urge to reproduce is a strong one. However humans can and do choose not to. Where as a cat and every other living thing in the world doesn't choose they just do what comes natural. What gives man that ability to say no to our base instinct if man is nothing special and no better than any other animal how is it we can choose against nature?
Studies have been done on serial killers. It's possible this behavior or mutation, if it is one, goes back to man's primitive beginnings. There was also a study that man almost didn't make it to being the superior species. I can't give you links because I read about it in a library some time ago. I'm sure if you google for information, you may find it. I sometimes feel guilty about questioning my existence. Probably because my family practiced mainstream religion. I was raised a Lutheran-Evangelical; was on the children's choir for years. I loved going to church when I was growing up, but I still had questions about religion and God. I still do. I can't help it. I believe there are logical answers to many of life's difficult questions. I don't believe we should ever stop learning or exploring the mystery of who we are and how we came to be. To accept that an ancient book is the complete truth and the only truth to everything that happened since the beginning of time, is not being very realistic in my opinion. The Bible has many good rules to live by, but it also contradicts itself. I often had questions as a child, but my parents, Sunday school teachers and even the minister discouraged me from getting too inquisitive. All they would tell me is that the Bible says so, that no other explanation is necessary and that I shouldn't question such things because only God has the answers and we must not tempt the lord thy God. They made me feel bad for even wanting to know. That didn't seem right to me and I was just a child. I realize though that they were deeply set into their beliefs. I get the sense that many people who are religious are afraid of death being the final frontier. It's too great a reality to deal with, that when you're dead, that's it. Every living thing on this earth gets a chance at life, and if they're lucky or smart, they get to live a long time, but when it's over, it's over. I don't think many people can face that. I know I felt the same way.

“Ignore the trolls”

Level 6

Since: Oct 08

Bournemouth, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63211
Dec 4, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I paid 3 families rent and once a month I give out food at the mission to families in need. At Christmas I hand out gifts to kids my kids only get one gift from my wife and I so we can help poor kids. I've done this the last 3 years. What do you do to help your fellow man? Point an laugh and thank the whatever you believe in its not you?
As for religions that don't believe in satan or the Christian God I have no idea. However missionaries do some great work. I also don't think God punishes those who don't know of him. The Bible says where there is no law their is no sin. For those how have the chance to know and ignore him they're in trouble.
Like you, I volunteer using my skills with the disabled (teaching them to sail). Some are amputees returning from Afghanistan - I'm ex-military. One of the most rewarding areas of my life.

Have you ever thought of the ramifications if their religion, not yours is the "right" one?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63212
Dec 4, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what everyone keeps telling you is wrong.
The language referred to as "Old English" was a fully developed language brought over by those tribes. You can't say that it was defined by stepping onto the shores of the British Isles, nor is there any particular moment where the language suddenly fused with Celtic or Roman influences, or any other language. It was and is constantly changing, and you are way overdue to stop wasting everyone's time with absolutes that are NEVER absolute.
Charles, you can't function without your arbitrary word rituals, can you? Of course, you're an excellent driver too! Yeah!
The English people and some other truthful people, knows that i am right. The tribes became English, do your research. They left mainland Europe in mass. English is a language first spoken in England.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63213
Dec 4, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
Oh and why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?(Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species)
"Want" does not come into it.

If you do not reproduce and your neighbour has 10 kids, then the next generation is made of his offspring, not yours. Therefore his inclinations - such as the urge to reproduce - are the ones that spread, while yours disappear from the record.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63214
Dec 5, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Can they isolate the "gene" for reproduction? What gene makes man so far beyond all other species? I've read on here some kinds of bird were the first to evolve past dinosaur using just basic logic should birds not be superior to man?
Birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Mammals evolved from another group of reptiles (therapsids), at about the same time as dinosaurs were first evolving (from archosaurs), but dinosaurs became dominant and stayed that way until 65 million years ago.

But you are missing the point. Everything has been evolving for as long as everything else - about 3.5 billion years, whether its a frog or an oak tree or a human. And "superior" is a meaningless word in the context you use it.

You might think you are superior to a rat or an E. coli because you have a big brain. You can certainly say your intelligence, as a characteristic, is superior to theirs. But survival is the whole package. Your brain carries a price...perhaps even the ability to form massive groups and develop weapons of mass destruction can be seen as indications that intelligence is an evolutionary dead end!

Every species alive today is "the winner" in superiority and luck...come back in 50 million years to see which species were the luckiest or most superior "today". Perhaps 50 million years from now, the majority of successful species on the planet might have evolved from today's bats! There is no way of knowing.
Sandy

Reading, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63215
Dec 5, 2012
 
monkey ? NOT!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63216
Dec 5, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> The English people and some other truthful people, knows that i am right. The tribes became English, do your research. They left mainland Europe in mass. English is a language first spoken in England.
Yawn...if you say so.

The more important question is, could the sons of the Angle, Saxon, and Jute conquerors of Britain understand the language of their fathers? Or their grandsons?

There is a common logical fallacy that many fall prone to - which is the stamping of discrete categories onto phenomena that form a continuum. Arguing all day as to what miniscule gradation of grey should be called dark grey versus light grey.

The conquerors spoke whatever flavour of German and Norse their fathers did, and when, over generations, that language gradually differentiated on the Island of Britain to be first a recognisably different accent, then dialect, from the mainland varieties (which would have been changing independently too), then we can speak of Old English.

What is the big deal about where you draw a magic line between a "father" who spoke a German dialect and his son who spoke "the first true English". Its the fantasy of artificial categories.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63217
Dec 5, 2012
 
Knightmare wrote:
http://www.geekosystem.com/sci entists-are-liars/
Scientific papers being retracted after publication isn’t some kind of new phenomenon. The age of press releases might have made such snafus a more widely-known event, but it’s one of those things that happens from time to time. Common wisdom was that the majority of retractions were due to errors present in the work, but a new study has concluded that it’s actually misconduct like fraud or plagiarism that causes most retractions. In other words, scientists aren’t dumb; they’re just liars.
PhysOrg breaks down how the new study came to this conclusion:
The study reviewed 2,047 papers retracted from the biomedical literature through May 2012. To determine the reasons for the retractions, the researchers consulted several secondary sources, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Research Integrity and Retractionwatch.com , which investigate scientific misconduct.
The researchers found that about 21 percent of the retractions were attributable to error, while 67 percent were due to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43 percent), duplicate publication (14 percent), and plagiarism (10 percent). Miscellaneous or unknown reasons accounted for the remaining 12 percent.
The studies that investigated this issue previously only took into account the official retractions by the scientific journals — which are written by the authors of the paper being retracted. It’s not like they’re going to come right out and say,“We totally copied this bit from someone else,” or anything like that.
And these errors, frauds, plagiarisms, duplicates etc were found out leaving only genuine scientific work. Thanks for pointing out the rigours of the scientific method

Tell me, has the bible ever been peer reviewed?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63218
Dec 5, 2012
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn...if you say so.
The more important question is, could the sons of the Angle, Saxon, and Jute conquerors of Britain understand the language of their fathers? Or their grandsons?
There is a common logical fallacy that many fall prone to - which is the stamping of discrete categories onto phenomena that form a continuum. Arguing all day as to what miniscule gradation of grey should be called dark grey versus light grey.
The conquerors spoke whatever flavour of German and Norse their fathers did, and when, over generations, that language gradually differentiated on the Island of Britain to be first a recognisably different accent, then dialect, from the mainland varieties (which would have been changing independently too), then we can speak of Old English.
What is the big deal about where you draw a magic line between a "father" who spoke a German dialect and his son who spoke "the first true English". Its the fantasy of artificial categories.
Interesting. That was why English language was first spoken in England.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63219
Dec 5, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you filter them out?
Failure to survive or reproduce. That is the whole point. Variations that don't work as well disappear, and those that work better come to predominate. Thus trait by trait, species change over time.

Where it gets interesting is if you take one population (species), and split it. Now any novel variation occurring in each one does not get passed to the other group, meaning the two groups diverge over time and often in very different directions, depending on the mutations that occur and the environment they are in. That is how you get new species, according to evolution. The fossil record and the evidence from the genome both back that hypothesis up beyond all reasonable doubt.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63220
Dec 5, 2012
 
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you hate kittens, Maz?
Also, sympathies with our cricket team DEMOLISHING YOURS IN THE THIRD TEST!!
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Apart from Kitten on here I like kittens and hate girley games like cricket.
I do like evolutionists that evade science, like most here. That gives me joolies for the day.
A couple gave it a shot for a couple of posts, failed miserably, and now you want to talk about kittens.
For starters. Why don't you evos tell us how arch is not an intermediate anything. Arch is a variety of dinosaur and has theropod traits, like a thick and boomerang shaped wish bone that looks nothing like a bird wishbone, what so ever.
I think evolutionaruy researchers need to get new evogoggles.
How you get your sexual excitement is not our problem, however I can suggest you try a man for a change. I’m sure DF will oblige if you are attractive enough, or if you feed him enough alcohol

To be perfectly honest with you I cannot say that I know of any people who believe evolution happened who evade the science. I do now of several creatards like you who lie and fabricate and misrepresent science. You, yourself have been caught and proven to be lying, fabricating and misrepresenting science on several occasions in the few weeks in which you discovered this soapbox

For starters why don’t you tell us why you are still using the OLD, outdated and discredited idea that dinosaurs were cold blooded?

I think creatareds need to go sick a lemon and then go back to school

P.S. Still waiting for your “peer reviewed” confirmations or were you LYING?

P.S.S Still waiting for you apology for calling me a liar to which I offered PROOF with a direct link to my post that PROVED you wrong.

However like all creatards you are too deliberately ignorant and self centred to let a little thing like PROOF dissuade you from your lies so I wait in hope but with no expectation.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63221
Dec 5, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Interesting. That was why English language was first spoken in England.
An argument about nothing.

Is what you call Old English much different from what you would call Old Frisian and Old West German? They could understand each other easily, so it was more of an accent than a truly separate language at that point.

IN the same way, when speciation begins, there are accents (races), subspecies(dialects) and eventually new separate languages (species).

We could carry the analogy as far as language groups (slavis, germanic, romance)(classes) and language families such Indo European corresponding to phyla (vertebrates or chordates).

Very different things...built up over time by gradual almost infinitesimal change.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63222
Dec 5, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
How could random mutations create a male and female of the same species? Than if random mutation did create 2 of the same species how long would that take? Would be in the life time of the first one?
Completely wrong way of looking at it.

Bacteria often share genetic information by swapping plasmids, but there is not a male or female bacterium. It just illustrates the most primitive way we know of genetic recombination.

In many primitive species, male and female functions are not well differentiated. The same individual can be both in a lifetime.

As usual for creationists, you are looking at the finished product of a long succession of intermediate stages, and assume it all had to appear at once in something close to modern form. That is not how evolution works.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63223
Dec 5, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Dan, I think TOE should be excluded from science streams and put in with philosophies. TOE is a philosophy of faith that is suppported by misrepresentation and hubris.
ONCE AGAIN FOR THE HARD OF THINKING.

Evolution is proven, the theory of evolution explains that proof. It is independently proven in several different ways

The universal genetic code and genetic commonalties
The fossil record.
Common traits in embryos
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics
There are also several ONGOING studies to observe evolution in action for example the Langkawi bent-toed gecko (Cyrtodactylus macrotuberculatus) is currently undergoing evolutionary change od a generation by generation basis

The skeletal history of Pygmy three-toed sloth (Bradypus pygmaeus) can be easilt traced because it ioe effectively unique in that it only exists on one small island, Escudo de Veraguas and nowhere else in the world.

My dearest Maz who gets her sexual excitement from a topix thread, I have studied this fact and seen it with my own eyes. I have observed and measured the skeletons of cro magnon man (yes, your ancestors, early humans and have seen the evolutionary differences between them and modern humans). However you seem to be a fooking wiz at calling fact and truth as lies so go ahead and call me a liar and prove just how ignorant your guesswork makes you look

When you threaten to restrict my children’s education to your personal belief then you show yourself to be the type of person of limited intellect that you are, so limited in fact that you see no reason why all other people should not be as stupid as you

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63224
Dec 5, 2012
 
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me help...and evolutionists have..."faith" that vampires, werewolves and zombies exist and now dragons...
Is this from the babble?

Lets see where you obsession stems from

Vampires - Leviticus 17:10-14, Proverbs 30:14, Leviticus 17:10-14 etc, etc. It is documented that vampires are of biblical origin – hey if it’s good enough for the god book it should be good enough for you – right?

Hmm, interesting,

How about werewolves, yes one mention in Genesis 49:27 will this enlighten us?

So how about zombies - Zechariah 14:12, Matthew 27:51-53 etc, etc

Bloodyhell, not wonder you are obsessed and it is no wonder that christians are so enamoured with the Twilight program, it must be like having the babble read out in church.

So what about dragons – yes there are in the babble too, Revelation 12:9, Revelation 13:1-18, Isaiah 27:1, etc, etc

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63225
Dec 5, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you explain that. Doesn't the DNA repair system corrects any mismatch in genome or reduces mutations that occur. Mutations can occur (inherited or acquired) if there is an error in DNA and is either neutral or harmful. Unless you can prove that there are beneficial mutations. If most mutations known are harmful and causes defects, imagine the odds of having a 'beneficial' mutation if DNA mismatch repair system detects those mutations all the time. If humans evolved from lower life forms, that's a whole lot of mutations and an overworked DNA!
The DNA repair system is obviously not perfect because we know mutations occur.

Beneficial ones will spread rapidly through a population and become the "new normal", while deleterious ones will cause, by definition, some loss in survival potential and so be weeded out.

It may look hard to fathom when you say "evolved from lower life forms". You mean like worms? Well, perhaps. But we differ only in minor ways anatomically from a chimp. The main difference being expansion of their already impressive brain case...which we can see happening in stages through the hominid fossil record, most of it occurring in the last 2 million years well after bipedalism was established.

Its not hard to see the gradation back to monkeys from the great apes. Nor hard to see from some of the monkeys to lemurs, from lemurs to more ground based critters like weasels, from weasels to more primitive mammals in the fossil record. And we have good fossils linking the early mammals to reptiles, early reptiles to amphibians, and amphibians to fish. Its all gradual and slowww, even the so called "fast parts".

I just passed through 400 million years of evolution in that paragraph.

Important note though...the MODERN apes, monkeys, lemurs, reptiles, amphibians and fish are NOT exactly the same as the ancestral ones...they have all been evolving too, for just as long as we have. We did not evolve from a chimp, but from a common ancestor of modern humans and chimps...etc.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63226
Dec 5, 2012
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
ONCE AGAIN FOR THE HARD OF THINKING.
...My dearest Maz who gets her sexual excitement from a topix thread... you seem to be a fooking wiz at calling fact and truth as lies so go ahead and call me a liar and prove just how ignorant your guesswork makes you look
When you threaten to restrict my children’s education to your personal belief then you show yourself to be the type of person of limited intellect that you are, so limited in fact that you see no reason why all other people should not be as stupid as you
Getting a little impatient?

Careful, the moment you insult a biblical YEC creationist type (s)he will jump on the persecution soapbox, which is one of the emotional wellsprings of their irrational creed. Its like giving vodka to an alcoholic :) Don't you know there is a war on Christmas!

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63227
Dec 5, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Apart from Kitten on here I like kittens and hate girley games like cricket.
I do like evolutionists that evade science, like most here. That gives me joolies for the day.
A couple gave it a shot for a couple of posts, failed miserably, and now you want to talk about kittens.
For starters. Why don't you evos tell us how arch is not an intermediate anything. Arch is a variety of dinosaur and has theropod traits, like a thick and boomerang shaped wish bone that looks nothing like a bird wishbone, what so ever.
I think evolutionaruy researchers need to get new evogoggles.
Want to talk science, Maz? Okay, let's talk science. Answer these questions, if you please:

1) You believe in gravity, right? Tell us, in a single sentence, why the Earth does not pull the Earth towards it? How is the moon able to stay in the sky?

2) When digging for dinosaurs, why do I have to go down into deeper strata to find them? Why will I not find a dinosaur in the same strata than say, a lion, elephant or oryx?

3) When we radiometrically test the strata, why do we get more severe decay the deeper we do down?

4) GPS has allowed us to confirm that the continents are moving - at about 1-2 inches per year. Africa and South America's coast lines has a matching geologic profile - that implies that they were together at one stage in time. At the current rate of motion, the continents would have split up 97 million years ago. Do you have any other explanation that fit the facts?

5) Also by using the wonders of GPS technology, we measure that Everest is getting higher every year. Please, give a brief explanation of why

6) Take distilled water, put it into the microwave for about 5 minutes and add a spoonful of sugar. What would happen?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63228
Dec 5, 2012
 
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that last question is actually implied in my posts...
So Darwin never existed? Darwin's theories were only meant as fiction? There really is no missing link?
The universe didn't just pop into existence out of nothing because a piece of dust had nothing to do?
Hey the Bible tells us that your God sniffs panties!

Yuck

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63230
Dec 5, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>

WHAT TRAITS DOES ARCH HAVE THAT ARE ACTUALLY INTERMEDIATE?
Archaeopteryx

Bird features:

1. Flight feathers
2. Hollow bones
3. Broad wings

Therapod features:

1. Raptorial claw
2. Teeth.
3. Elongated tail

Now, here are some questions for you:

1. Why do chickens, in embryonic stage, have deactivated genes for teeth?

2. Why does DNA mapping tell us that T-Rex DNA shows that modern birds are its closest living ancestor?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••