Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 comments on the Jan 6, 2011, Best of New Orleans story 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

#63816 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You may now put that foot of yours further down your mouth. Your link says nothing about arch having hollow bones.
Instead it said.....
"Our research shows us that this is much more like a dinosaur than a modern bird," says Gregory Erickson of the Department of Biological Science at Florida State University in Tallahassee, and a lead author on the new report, which was published online yesterday in the journal PLoS ONE. By looking at the growth patterns in bone, Erickson and his colleagues were able to discover that Archaeopteryx had a slow and stilted growing period like other dinosaurs, and unlike modern birds, which "just explode into adult size," he explains.
Archaeopteryx's bones, including annual growth lines, small blood vessels and parallel bone cells, shared by other similar-size dinosaurs, such as the Jeholornis prima."
SO, ACTUALLY YOUR ARTICLE SUPPORTS ME.
Now how do you suppose these bright ones OBSERVED this? They didn't. Instead they got out their algorithmic magic, filled it with unkown and speculative insertion values still based on a predetermined connection.
This is also what it says....
"Despite the general similarities to modern birds—feathers, a beak and a wishbone—that led to its avian categorization in the first place, the Archaeopteryx "would be very foreign to bird-watchers today," Erickson says.
The headline is BYE BYE BIRDIE, New Look at Archaeopteryx Shows It Was More Dinosaur Than Bird .... Did you happen to read that?
Now this above is rubbish because Trex had feathers and arch did not 'evolve' the feathers as an intermedate step.
As for the wishbone, all you evos have avoided commentary on the fact that the dino wishbone, furcula, looks nothing at all like a bird wishbone.
As for the beak, this is another fraudulent misrepresentation to fool the public into thinking these researchers know what they are saying. In actual fact Arch's beak was no more similar to the beak dinos have and a plethora of other creatures share.
"The terms beak and rostrum are also used to refer to a similar mouthpart in some Ornithischian dinosaurs, monotremes, cephalopods (see Cephalopod beak), cetaceans, billfishes, pufferfishes, turtles, Anuran tadpoles and sirens."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beak
The reason why you evos cannot clearly dilineate a bird from a dinosaur is that you simply refuse to look at difference. You all are absolutely so indoctrinated into evolutionary theory that you are blind and look to all with evo goggles.
You one thing you 'know' from the fossil record and life today is that a plethora of creatues share many similar traits. One does not tell creatures apart by looking to the similarities, one looks to the differences which I also do. That is why I can be a heck of a lot clear in separating familial homological relationships and discontinuities than evos can.
Evos take these footprints and invent mythical theropods to explain them, backed by a plehtora of algorithmic magic that suggests conflicting results and claims that are hugely misrepresented.
I say again, on my point 3, I have fossilised evidence of modern bird footprints that display a reversed hallux and look exactly like modern bird footprints look like. That assertion is based on the science of observation. You have hubris and often non plausible hypothesis to explain them.
I manintain my 6 points in support of a creationist paradigm are certianly no worse, yet appear to be more rubust and credible than anything an evolutionist can provide in support of their view.
Learn to read:

"or avian dinosaurs—share a different set of traits, such as hollow bones and rapid growth, than those exhibited by their prehistoric predecessors."

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63817 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Edited to remove shabby thinking, lies, erroneous misinformation and fantasy denial.
When can no longer learn, then one is lost. Mas Here is lost here and there and everywhere.
But do not fear, Maz Here is a mad hare and happy with her lies to bear.
Something is out of whack in the Outback.
Reason is put assunder in the Land Down Under.
But of fear we still have no cause.
There remain many intelligent people in the Land of Oz.
It is just that not as many of them seem to post here.
With apologies to Blue Nose and others.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63818 Dec 7, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's amazing actually, for so long we thought we were alone, we were not "one of them" ... and now we find that we are more alike to the other animals than we could have dreamed. We are not alone, we have plenty of family here, on Earth. Even reptiles exhibit the same emotional and caring responses a lot. Apes have psychotic individuals like we do. Birds use tools like makeshift shovels and spades to cultivate food. It's more fun to see what we thought was "human" behavior in the animals than it is to see the "animal" behavior of religious people.
That would be because despite all the rhetoric and similarity many non closely related species share, only mankind, a furless, obligate bipedal primate, can make meaning of the world and conceive the concept of a God and afterlife. Despite sign language a fur laiden ape will never conceive of a God, no matter how many generations of signing you evoke.

The mind of God is where we refect the likeness of God, not in the limbs tetrapods and whales are supposed to share which is ridiculous, nor the neural spindles primates share with whales and nothing in between.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63819 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So we are going to start again are we? That is your strategy?
How does a deteriorating genome support TOE again??????????
Oh that's right, YOU have NO idea!
Wouldn't a deteriorating genome cast doubt on a creater? Unless he was a creator as ingnorant and evil as you.

Does God then, have a deteriorating genome?

Biblical creation does not line up with the fossil record and nothing you have posted so far cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

But you keep trying dear, and one day those voices in your head will stop screaming.
Anonymous

UK

#63820 Dec 7, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> What do you mean?
Are you indirectly or directly saying that Christianity are not in the majority in the UK ?
No, Britain, like most of Europe and America is Christian, celebrates Christmas and Easter, but people don't pray or go to church like they used to, and we don't have the fundamentalists who preach hate about homosexuals or abortion, we don't have many creationists, but Britain is still culturally a Christian country, even if most people dont believe these days

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63821 Dec 7, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Learn to read:
"or avian dinosaurs—share a different set of traits, such as hollow bones and rapid growth, than those exhibited by their prehistoric predecessors."
YOU learn to read and comprehend together like a human being is supposed to be able to do. This is what the article says...

"Modern birds—or avian dinosaurs—share a different set of traits, such as hollow bones and rapid growth, than those exhibited by their prehistoric predecessors."

IOW.. Modern birds HAVE a DIFFERENT set of traits, including hollow bones than their predecessors, eg Arch. In my other article ARCH HAS A DIFFERENT GROWTH RATE TO BIRDS and LIKE DINOSAURS.

ARCH DID NOT HAVE HOLLOW BONES, you and the rest of the gaggle of geese! Nor did it have a furcula that looked anything like a modern bird, nor are feathers solely an avian trait, nor are dino beaks, and the entirely of evolutionary theory is based on ROT, yet my 6 points stand strong.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63822 Dec 7, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Wouldn't a deteriorating genome cast doubt on a creater? Unless he was a creator as ingnorant and evil as you.
Does God then, have a deteriorating genome?
Biblical creation does not line up with the fossil record and nothing you have posted so far cast doubt on the theory of evolution.
But you keep trying dear, and one day those voices in your head will stop screaming.
Well if you disagree then you will start posting more than you opinion and articulate why I am wrong.

It has taken weeks to get you evo idiots to start talking science instead of hubris and now after a quick and failed jolst you are back to your hubris with nothing not a link to be seen.

The deteriorating genome supports 2 claims, 1. the fall of man and 2. that life could not have been 'evolving' for billions of years due to the cost. That I have supported with data that DOES say the genome is deteriorating and then goes on to evoke hubris based on nothing more than algorithmic magical hand waving to explain it.

If you disagree then get that lazy ass and head working and come up with something more than 'quack quack'.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63823 Dec 7, 2012
Lactase persistence and the ability to digest lactose is a recent positive change in the human genome. Previously seen as a disease (Simoons, F. J. 1969), research has shown it to be a heritable trait (Itan, Y., B.L. Jones, et al). This recent genetic change that is found in populations in Europe the West fits the bill as an example of new information added recently to our genome. While we may not understand all the details surrounding this new trait (Swallow, DM 2003) it still represents an evolution of the human genome.

Itan, Y., B.L. Jones, C.J. Ingram, D.M. Swallow & M.G. Thomas. 2010. A worldwide correlation of lactase persistence phenotype and genotypes. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 10: 36.

Simoons, F.J. 1969. Primary adult lactose intolerance and the milking habit: A problem in biological and cultural interrelations. I. Review of the medical research. Digestive Diseases & Sciences. 14(12): 819–836.

Swallow, D.M. 2003. Genetics of lactase persistence and lactose intolerance. Annu. Rev. Genetics. 37: 197–219.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63824 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if you disagree then you will start posting more than you opinion and articulate why I am wrong.
It has taken weeks to get you evo idiots to start talking science instead of hubris and now after a quick and failed jolst you are back to your hubris with nothing not a link to be seen.
The deteriorating genome supports 2 claims, 1. the fall of man and 2. that life could not have been 'evolving' for billions of years due to the cost. That I have supported with data that DOES say the genome is deteriorating and then goes on to evoke hubris based on nothing more than algorithmic magical hand waving to explain it.
If you disagree then get that lazy ass and head working and come up with something more than 'quack quack'.
I've told you why you are wrong, Subduction Zone has told you, many, many others have told you. It won't matter how much actual, factual information you are provided, shown, hand held while taken to it, you are going to continue spreading your lies and mental filth on here.

I can't imagine you are someone right with the Lord when you are so willing to lie, and misslead others. Your must have the weakest faith to believe this is the way to go.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63825 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if you disagree then you will start posting more than you opinion and articulate why I am wrong.
It has taken weeks to get you evo idiots to start talking science instead of hubris and now after a quick and failed jolst you are back to your hubris with nothing not a link to be seen.
The deteriorating genome supports 2 claims, 1. the fall of man and 2. that life could not have been 'evolving' for billions of years due to the cost. That I have supported with data that DOES say the genome is deteriorating and then goes on to evoke hubris based on nothing more than algorithmic magical hand waving to explain it.
If you disagree then get that lazy ass and head working and come up with something more than 'quack quack'.
Wow, a new twist from a twisted mind.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63826 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU learn to read and comprehend together like a human being is supposed to be able to do. This is what the article says...
"Modern birds—or avian dinosaurs—share a different set of traits, such as hollow bones and rapid growth, than those exhibited by their prehistoric predecessors."
IOW.. Modern birds HAVE a DIFFERENT set of traits, including hollow bones than their predecessors, eg Arch. In my other article ARCH HAS A DIFFERENT GROWTH RATE TO BIRDS and LIKE DINOSAURS.
ARCH DID NOT HAVE HOLLOW BONES, you and the rest of the gaggle of geese! Nor did it have a furcula that looked anything like a modern bird, nor are feathers solely an avian trait, nor are dino beaks, and the entirely of evolutionary theory is based on ROT, yet my 6 points stand strong.
Come on Kitten, I have had enough of your rot and Subby's. You say dinos have hollow bones and the article also says so. You are both mistaken.

I seriously get tired of responses from empty vessels that can chase tails with philosophy, bomb out everytime they try to talk science and want to reinforce their scientific ignorance. You keep talking about your la de da stuff and vagueary because are much better at that. Evo philosophers!

Now Kitten are you and that other goose Subby going to fess up to being unable to engage reading and comprehension skills both at the same time and were WRONG? Birds have hollow bones.

My six point stand as evidence for creation and you evos simply cannot refute them. Due to the fact that my assertions are based on raw data, stripped of evo excuses, you will not be able to refute me, struggle as you may. It is all a hypothesis but I do not have to complicate the data, even as biased as it is, by adding assumptions and stories that these evos have to come up with.

However, I can better refute you, because your hypothesis/excuses are your evo supports and are challengeable exactly because they are hypothesis, and not the data.

So instead I reckon you evos should post and articulate what you see as some scientific points, data and links (not philosophy), that you feel is convincing support for TOE and let's look at them, because so far none I have spoken to appear to be credible and robust.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63827 Dec 7, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Wow, a new twist from a twisted mind.
I'll add you to the mob of geese above that can ridicule and prattle but are lost when it comes to using science to support their view. Evo philosophers the lot of you here.

After a month or so, a few days on science, and you are back to babble.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63828 Dec 7, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Lactase persistence and the ability to digest lactose is a recent positive change in the human genome. Previously seen as a disease (Simoons, F. J. 1969), research has shown it to be a heritable trait (Itan, Y., B.L. Jones, et al). This recent genetic change that is found in populations in Europe the West fits the bill as an example of new information added recently to our genome. While we may not understand all the details surrounding this new trait (Swallow, DM 2003) it still represents an evolution of the human genome.
Itan, Y., B.L. Jones, C.J. Ingram, D.M. Swallow & M.G. Thomas. 2010. A worldwide correlation of lactase persistence phenotype and genotypes. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 10: 36.
Simoons, F.J. 1969. Primary adult lactose intolerance and the milking habit: A problem in biological and cultural interrelations. I. Review of the medical research. Digestive Diseases & Sciences. 14(12): 819–836.
Swallow, D.M. 2003. Genetics of lactase persistence and lactose intolerance. Annu. Rev. Genetics. 37: 197–219.
So you think posting a link that speaks to somatic change is a refute to the deteriorating genome, is that how it is?

I can post dozens of them. None of then demonstrates a limitless ablity to adapt, let alone have anything to say in relation to the research I have posted on the deteriorating genome. Creos accept limited adaptation, not unlimited.

My 6 point list contains a few of a plethora around a variety of organisms with a deteriorating genome.

Dan, go back to the kindy forum!!!!!!!!!!

So basically you have just wasted space, demonstrated you have no idea how to defend anything and just want to post because you hate the idea that I can actually support myself, and want to justify your existence on a debating thread.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63829 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think posting a link that speaks to somatic change is a refute to the deteriorating genome, is that how it is?
I can post dozens of them. None of then demonstrates a limitless ablity to adapt, let alone have anything to say in relation to the research I have posted on the deteriorating genome. Creos accept limited adaptation, not unlimited.
My 6 point list contains a few of a plethora around a variety of organisms with a deteriorating genome.
Dan, go back to the kindy forum!!!!!!!!!!
So basically you have just wasted space, demonstrated you have no idea how to defend anything and just want to post because you hate the idea that I can actually support myself, and want to justify your existence on a debating thread.
You still don't answer my questions and you never will because everything you say would fall apart if you tried to answer them honestly.

Yes, I do becasue it shows that the genome is not deteriorating. That is just your mind.

If you can post these then do so. You won't because you cannot.

Go on Maz, show some balls. Put up or shut up.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63830 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think posting a link that speaks to somatic change is a refute to the deteriorating genome, is that how it is?
I can post dozens of them. None of then demonstrates a limitless ablity to adapt, let alone have anything to say in relation to the research I have posted on the deteriorating genome. Creos accept limited adaptation, not unlimited.
My 6 point list contains a few of a plethora around a variety of organisms with a deteriorating genome.
Dan, go back to the kindy forum!!!!!!!!!!
So basically you have just wasted space, demonstrated you have no idea how to defend anything and just want to post because you hate the idea that I can actually support myself, and want to justify your existence on a debating thread.
It is an alteration of the genome that is expressed as an ability to digest lactose. Do you not understand anything you are railing on about?

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63831 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think posting a link that speaks to somatic change is a refute to the deteriorating genome, is that how it is?
I can post dozens of them. None of then demonstrates a limitless ablity to adapt, let alone have anything to say in relation to the research I have posted on the deteriorating genome. Creos accept limited adaptation, not unlimited.
My 6 point list contains a few of a plethora around a variety of organisms with a deteriorating genome.
Dan, go back to the kindy forum!!!!!!!!!!
So basically you have just wasted space, demonstrated you have no idea how to defend anything and just want to post because you hate the idea that I can actually support myself, and want to justify your existence on a debating thread.
A plethora? No not a plethora. My God, why didn't someone tell me she had a plethora.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63832 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think posting a link that speaks to somatic change is a refute to the deteriorating genome, is that how it is?
I can post dozens of them. None of then demonstrates a limitless ablity to adapt, let alone have anything to say in relation to the research I have posted on the deteriorating genome. Creos accept limited adaptation, not unlimited.
My 6 point list contains a few of a plethora around a variety of organisms with a deteriorating genome.
Dan, go back to the kindy forum!!!!!!!!!!
So basically you have just wasted space, demonstrated you have no idea how to defend anything and just want to post because you hate the idea that I can actually support myself, and want to justify your existence on a debating thread.
Talk about wind in the channels as a defense. Now we are seeing what you do when you come up against real scientific evidence. You fizzle out like a fart in hurricane.

See ya. Wouldn't wanna be ya.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63833 Dec 7, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is not.
It is teachers jobs to teach the SECULAR subjects. It is parents jobs to teach WHATEVER FAITH they choose to instill in ther children, and there is nothing WRONG with that (as long as it is NOT harming OTHERS)!!!!!!!!!
So we agree, it is the teachers' job to teach about evolution, a secular subject.

You are wrong when you say parent's are doing no harm to their children when they instill a faith in them. Is it wrong, or bad for a child to be taught by their parents to be a suicide bomber? Is it wrong for parents to tell their dying children that blood transplants are evil? If you cannot say these are bad then there is something seriously wrong with you.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63834 Dec 7, 2012
Oh and Dan, Don't forget the accumulating effects of beneficial mutations were overwhelmingly negative. That is on top of the research on the deteriorating genome. Do I need to repost the articles again?

I have not misrepresented the research either. Indeed I suugest the researchers did not explain how the genome has survived the costs and have left that question up in the air with maybe's and perhaps's.

Let me point you in the right direction... What have you got in the way of explaing the above? If you can't then there is no use babbling on with asides like somatic change, and misrepresented fossils, that make you appear all the more ignorant of your own science.

“Swimming With Ignorant Snarks”

Since: Nov 10

Great White Snark

#63835 Dec 7, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes but this brand of insult slinging is how you evos get out of answering questions. If you're so informed why not answer?
If you have a question that is truly bothering you about evolution...there's a deal called goggle....intellectual laziness isn't a valid argument for creationism.

Einstein was right when he said, "two things are infinite. The Universe and human stupidity and I'm not certain about the former."

Science has pretty much nailed down that human morality increases with evolution but with religion fighting evolution every step of the way, can we evolve in time?

Crea
tionism is dangerous. It like a continuing education making various myths legitimate. Where do we draw the line when it comes to our children's education? Do we continue the Santa myth or leprechauns into secondary education, with their only evidence of fact is a book filled with talking snakes and animals, fiery serpents and vipers, giants, magic and witches, death, destruction, vengeance and bronze age gossip.

Creationist (as a cult) tend to be right-wing white supremacists, they fear equality, sex, change, women and have abnormal sexual perversion tendencies....they develop a patriarchal mentality that has failed mankind miserably. Scientific savvy in the US is disgraceful when compared other developed nations...and that can be laid at the Pearly Gates of creationism.

While I think a Leprechaun riding a Glitter Farting Unicorn would be cute and interesting, would it be healthy for children to be brainwashed into believing it is real or factual?

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) 2 min pusherman_ 161,531
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 4 min pusherman_ 860
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 4 min Hoosier Hillbilly 131
News HuffPost Is In Deep, Weird Denial About Bruce J... 11 min Karl 29
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 12 min Papa Smurfaletto 10,762
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 14 min substandard 28,890
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 41 min Papa Smurfaletto 7,847
Things that make life eaiser... 49 min Bev Roxon 160
motorcycle traveling stories 54 min Mega Monster 615
More from around the web