Evolution vs. Creation

There are 163665 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.

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#63905 Dec 7, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Do you believe that the Bible is inerrant and completely true, or will you concede that much of the stories are mythical; such as the Exodus and the Adam and Eve story??
This will undoubtedly have you thinking me stupid but I do believe God made man from dirt woman from a rib so on and so on.
I also believe the earth is billions of years old dinosaurs walked the earth. I have read most of the links papers and posts you guys have posted and while I find it interesting it just doesn't paint a complete picture there are holes in it.
I bet you can agree their are holes if their weren't people wouldn't still be studying it. They would say we know all their is to know about this and stop.
As far as exodus being a myth I read a paper today on the subject and the claim to have some writings from the Egyptians about Hebrew servants being buried with high ranking Egyptian officials

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63906 Dec 7, 2012
Maz, there is a reason why you cannot claim that any of your articles can ever be claimed to support creationism. And it has to do with the nature of scientific evidence.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63907 Dec 7, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, there is a reason why you cannot claim that any of your articles can ever be claimed to support creationism. And it has to do with the nature of scientific evidence.
Oh I can do better than that. I can claim that idiot evos are handing me creationist evidence on a silver platter then inventing hand waves to sticky tape your theories together.
Are you going to suck eggs or what? Dinosaurs DO NOT have hollow bones you evotard.

Arch is NOT an intermediate because it displays only theropod traits and NO unique modern bird traits and is bolstered by mirepresentation. Your whale evidence is also a fraudulent misrepresentation. Nothing I could present could be worse than the instability and rubbish you have to present.

That is what the data demonstrates and I think that means that your evolutionary research, as sick as this may sound, supports creationism, and your invented scenarios support TOE.

Indeed my 6 points still stand and you have convoluted misrepresentation to support TOE.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63908 Dec 7, 2012
These still stand Subby...

1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

2. Creationists predictions are vestigial organs are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to toddle off and redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu...

3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plant s to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment . Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since. Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet. The data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...

4. Beneficial mutations have an overwhelmingly negative effect due to epistasis. All the recent data supports this. Clearly this is evidence in support of creationism and an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt for billions of years. Evos have come up with many theoretical assumptions to explain this in evolutionary terms and why TOE is not falsified. Hence the data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

5. All data suggests the genome is deteriorating. Again this is creationist support demonstrating that adaptation is limited. Again evos have to toddle off and come up with some story and convoluted hypothesis as to why a deteriorating genome does not falsify TOE. The data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...

6. Evolutionary supports are derived from arbitrary and pick a box morphological and genomic homology that changes like the wind and biased algorithmic magic that is no better than any algorithmic magic a creationists can provide. This is supported by an evolutionary history of falsifications, instability and change.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...

None of the above links are to creationist sites, Some speak to published data. Many of the above links are to the actual peer reviewed work.

Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by excuses, hubris, rhetoric and pure speculation.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63909 Dec 7, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey genius, he was not talking about the Gospels, they are only 2,000 years old. But you do have a good point. There are some obvious fairy tales in the gospels too.
Thanks for the overthrust, Subby. I forgot, or never really focused upon the fact, that the gospels are only stories about Jesus. I have been re-reading the old testament, just finishing Jeremiah at the moment. Haven't got back into new testament mode yet.

Yours,

Aunty Cline
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Elkton, MD

#63910 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
These still stand Subby...
1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
Wait... how is a 100% functional genome supported by creationism?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63911 Dec 7, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, I see you ignored the three other links that I provided that show your interpretation of that sentence is wrong. All of them clearly stated that Archaeotperyx had hollow bones.
Go on, look for yourself.
Loon.
Look Subby, it does not matter. Arch cannot be an intermediate because a reversed hallux appears in the fossil record 60my before arch and arch did not have one. It can only be a feathered theropod or dino of some sort.

A reversed hallux is the signature of a modern bird and always has been until these evotards found the footprints and scurried off looking for spaz theropods. That is what is seen in the footprints and everything you lot invent is specualtion because evos simply cannot have modern birds flying around 212mya.

If I want to interpret that data as it stands I have that choice. It is less convoluted than your theories that are based on misrepresentation. You cannot say I have no evidence to support the Genesis account of when birds were created being out of alignment with TOE, because I have. Just because you don't like it, or it is against your speculations and misrepresentations, does not mean I cannot present evidence for my view.

My 6 points stand and they are based on data that you evos have handed me on a silver platter.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63912 Dec 7, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Catholics are Christian however you can be a born catholic or a convert. My wife's grandmother is a born catholic but goes to a baptist church and still calls herself catholic. It odd like the difference between national Jew and religious Jew almost. I don't do religion as it follows the organization of a church denomination. I belong to no church I just follow the teaching of Christ.
Bravo! Many of us sceptics could do as well.

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#63913 Dec 7, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe that the Bible is inerrant and completely true, or will you concede that much of the stories are mythical; such as the Exodus and the Adam and Eve story??
Freakshow.....the tales are true. That's why your ass is even here. Give credit when credit is due. You reject God, then you are nothing but a fool of common nature. A leaf on a tree which you say evolved. God starts with the very basics, for we were simply, humans.

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#63914 Dec 7, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
So Catholicism is not Christian??
Catholicism is the opposite of Christian.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63915 Dec 7, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
For years now I have considered the Catholic Church a tool of evil in the world.
It has all the problems of most self-preserving bureaucracies, but Gee, I love the ritual and it's trappings. Shame they gave up on latin. That was so cool.

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#63916 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I can do better than that. I can claim that idiot evos are handing me creationist evidence on a silver platter then inventing hand waves to sticky tape your theories together.
Are you going to suck eggs or what? Dinosaurs DO NOT have hollow bones you evotard.
Arch is NOT an intermediate because it displays only theropod traits and NO unique modern bird traits and is bolstered by mirepresentation. Your whale evidence is also a fraudulent misrepresentation. Nothing I could present could be worse than the instability and rubbish you have to present.
That is what the data demonstrates and I think that means that your evolutionary research, as sick as this may sound, supports creationism, and your invented scenarios support TOE.
Indeed my 6 points still stand and you have convoluted misrepresentation to support TOE.
Freakshow....you try to impress with literal garbage. You are a Freskshow with 2 days left in your life cycle. Roll over and sickly leak farts TOOL. You are not so very intelligent to sideslap us normals.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63917 Dec 7, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe 's_law
Goes to the wrong Poe (in my browser: Firefox 13.0.1 on OpenBSD 5.2)

Had to look it up manually. Neat meme though.

“Ignore the trolls”

Level 6

Since: Oct 08

Southampton, UK

#63918 Dec 7, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
While I don't disagree totally and I am in no way saying we shouldn't teach evolution nor am I saying don't teach creation.
When you have kids grade school to jr high who have been raised with parents who believe the creation story. Than a teacher tells them "no you your parents and anyone else who believes in creation is stupid we evolved" the kid is going to break one side or the other and it can drive a rift between parent and child or child to teacher. Rifts of mistrust can kill a relationship.
I take your point, but what you are suggesting is that schools should perpetuate inaccurate information to save the parent/child situation. Creationism is not a viable alternative to evolution, which is why it is not taught in UK science classrooms. Any seat of learning, from elementary school to university must be as accurate as possible in the information it imparts. Creationism can be dealt with in religious education classes, the proper place for a religious subject.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63919 Dec 7, 2012
Tyler Across the Galaxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait... how is a 100% functional genome supported by creationism?
Creationists predicted that the genome would be 100% functional whilst evolutionists were still carrying on about Junk dna being evidence for evolution.

For over a decade evos shoved junk dna down creos throats as evidence for evolution, as fuctionless leftovers.

Creationism can make a prediction on non coding dna. Evolutionists were either wrong in their predictions of junk dna or are now suggesting TOE makes no prediction at all around non coding dna.

1. Hence evolutionists validation that 80% of the genome is now known to be functional and likely 100% will be found to be functional, as opposed to 2% of the genome was functional a few years ago, is a creationist support because it validates a creo prediction.

God had no need to make junk dna if He designed the genome and therefore there will be no dna found to be non functional. Evos said junk was an evolutionary non functional leftover and were wrong.

2. TOE is a philosophy because it could make no prediction around non coding dna and is an 'anything goes' pseudo science, whilst creationism can make a prediction here. TOE has the hit and miss predictability of a crystal ball, whilst creationism can make predictions as any science should.

Although I class creationism as a philosophy like TOE, creationism appears to be built on better foundations than TOE.
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Elkton, MD

#63920 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationists predicted that the genome would be 100% functional whilst evolutionists were still carrying on about Junk dna being evidence for evolution.
For over a decade evos shoved junk dna down creos throats as evidence for evolution, as fuctionless leftovers.
Creationism can make a prediction on non coding dna. Evolutionists were either wrong in their predictions of junk dna or are now suggesting TOE makes no prediction at all around non coding dna.
1. Hence evolutionists validation that 80% of the genome is now known to be functional and likely 100% will be found to be functional, as opposed to 2% of the genome was functional a few years ago, is a creationist support because it validates a creo prediction.
God had no need to make junk dna if He designed the genome and therefore there will be no dna found to be non functional. Evos said junk was an evolutionary non functional leftover and were wrong.
2. TOE is a philosophy because it could make no prediction around non coding dna and is an 'anything goes' pseudo science, whilst creationism can make a prediction here. TOE has the hit and miss predictability of a crystal ball, whilst creationism can make predictions as any science should.
Although I class creationism as a philosophy like TOE, creationism appears to be built on better foundations than TOE.
I thought the current creationist hypothesis was that the human genome was deteriorating at an alarming rate. Doesn't mutation cause a loss of information, turning more and more DNA into useless noise? Shouldn't it be expected that there will be a not-insignificant portion of the human genome that is... well,'junk?'

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63921 Dec 7, 2012
Makesure100 wrote:
<quoted text>
Freakshow....you try to impress with literal garbage. You are a Freskshow with 2 days left in your life cycle. Roll over and sickly leak farts TOOL. You are not so very intelligent to sideslap us normals.
I can impress with what is called data and evidence you likely can't understand and you can offer verbal diarrhoea and farts out of your mouth. Look at the difference......

1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

2. Creationists predictions are vestigial organs are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to toddle off and redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu...

3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plant s to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment . Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since. Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet. The data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...

4. Beneficial mutations have an overwhelmingly negative effect due to epistasis. All the recent data supports this. Clearly this is evidence in support of creationism and an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt for billions of years. Evos have come up with many theoretical assumptions to explain this in evolutionary terms and why TOE is not falsified. Hence the data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

5. All data suggests the genome is deteriorating. Again this is creationist support demonstrating that adaptation is limited. Again evos have to toddle off and come up with some story and convoluted hypothesis as to why a deteriorating genome does not falsify TOE. The data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...

6. Evolutionary supports are derived from arbitrary and pick a box morphological and genomic homology that changes like the wind and biased algorithmic magic that is no better than any algorithmic magic a creationists can provide. This is supported by an evolutionary history of falsifications, instability and change.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...

None of the above links are to creationist sites, Some speak to published data. Many of the above links are to the actual peer reviewed work.

Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by excuses, hubris, rhetoric and pure speculation.
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Elkton, MD

#63922 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
5. All data suggests the genome is deteriorating. Again this is creationist support demonstrating that adaptation is limited. Again evos have to toddle off and come up with some story and convoluted hypothesis as to why a deteriorating genome does not falsify TOE. The data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...
Right, so, some chunk of the genome must therefore be useless by now, right?
krissy

Tacoma, WA

#63923 Dec 8, 2012
So, what says the thread about the upcoming Mayan End-O-Times Fiesta?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63924 Dec 8, 2012
Tyler Across the Galaxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought the current creationist hypothesis was that the human genome was deteriorating at an alarming rate. Doesn't mutation cause a loss of information, turning more and more DNA into useless noise? Shouldn't it be expected that there will be a not-insignificant portion of the human genome that is... well,'junk?'
No! Deterioration does not result in non coding dna.

For example the deterioration of the human male Y chromosome relates to the loss of genes, not the accumulation of junk.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MensHealthNews/s...

Indeed evolutionists just go with the flow and don't care as they can invent any story as they go along. You have a philosophy, not a science.

Your irrefuteable evidence for TOE in junk dna has been sent to that huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past full of what once upon a time was evidence.

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
Favorite 'I' word (Nov '10) 3 min Crazy Jae 1,076
Word Association. (Nov '10) 4 min Mega Monster 17,433
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 4 min _Zoey_ 4,506
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 5 min Old Sam 28,833
Word Association (Jun '10) 6 min Crazy Jae 27,615
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 6 min _Zoey_ 5,452
Just start naming actors and actresses (Sep '11) 6 min Old Sam 2,307
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 15 min wichita-rick 162,700
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 16 min Old Sam 11,345
Things that make life eaiser... 20 min Old Sam 569
motorcycle traveling stories 1 hr Mega Monster 752
News Driver Clocked at 153MPH in Dodge Wagon 1 hr NOPAR 5
More from around the web