Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209421 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.

FREE SERVANT
#63988 Dec 8, 2012
The Mayan calendar may be a cycle that is from the time of NImrod until now, they didn't know anything about what happens after this date.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#63989 Dec 8, 2012
If we are discussing the origin of "English", then we must discuss the origin of *Old English*, because *Old English* is the earliest form of English.
You suddenly realized that *Old English* was already spoken by the Angles and Saxons on their boats on the way to England.
No wonder you want to move the goalposts.
Charles Idemi wrote:
I have earlier told you that, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes left mainland europe in their mass to England.
And I already asked you, what language did they speak on their boats before they arrived on the island?
Charles Idemi wrote:
According to law, when a person leaves a particular place to another, he automatically becomes the citizen of that place
Really? Please quote the law that was in place when the Angles and Saxons arrived on the island.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#63990 Dec 8, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
You are wasting your time. Despite that, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, were/ are no German or Danish, they became English. Do your research on international laws or immigration laws.
Right, all those international laws and immigration laws were in place at the time that the Angles and Saxons arrived on the island.

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#63991 Dec 8, 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.
You realize that you're arguing with a guy who thinks that international laws and immigration laws were in place when the Angles and Saxons arrived in Britain?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#63992 Dec 8, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
On arrival, the Angles and Saxons were speaking old German.
No, they were speaking Old English, which is most closely related to Old Frisian. Together with Old Saxon (ancestral to Low German, not to German, aka High German), they were Ingvaeonic languages.

This puts them in a different branch from the branches leading to Dutch and German.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#63993 Dec 8, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
English is native to England, because it was first spoken there.
What language was spoken on board the boats of the Angles and Saxons on the way to England?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#63994 Dec 8, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Regarding the Mayan calendar, I think it goes back to a time just after the flood.
What flood?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63995 Dec 8, 2012
And Maz is still repeating her bogus claim of genetic deterioration.

Maz, the articles you find don't support you. They are lab studies where they took away half of the evolutionary process. They are only studying random mutation. You and all of your other creatard friends conveniently keep forgetting the other half of the equation; naturals selection.

Yes, it is easy to debunk evolution, if you only allow half of it. You will see creatards claim "Random mutation alone will not cause evolution" or "Random selection will only go so far". And both of these statements are true on their own and they are both LIES since they ignore the other half of the driving process of evolution.

Keep on making your busted claims Maz and we will keep busting them. You are only fooling yourself and your creatard friends. At least you outperform Russell in that regard.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#63996 Dec 8, 2012
Makesure100 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The thing is my friend, you have absolutely no proofs whatsoever for your claims, and science and evolutionists have tremendous evidences and proofs. You therefore live in a world of delusions

You believe in a world where magic is a viable commodity and demons are real. Of course it is all bullsh!t and provably wrong.

I live in a world with no demons, no spirits in the sky looking over my shoulder...where logic rules. I follow the Golden Rule and don't subscribe to the evil God of your Bible.

I have a realistic world-view, you are deluded

Since: Nov 12

Raymond, Canada

#63997 Dec 8, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Hypothesis? What's the hypothesis? The world wants to know, well, the intelligent portion of the world. Go ahead, answer it if you can, what is the hypothesis, no one else has actually answered that questions yet.
Well, there are some variations on the God-creation hypothesis, but usually
it comes down to the hypothesis that God made the world/universe at a fixed
time in the past, and events proceeded from there. What happened later, and
when and if He interceded in those later events, does now, or will in the
future, can be considered more or less separately. If the fixed moment when
God created the Universe is set back far enough, all the way to the big bang
event, or something semi-compatible with the most remote and exotic of
current physical theory guesses, then there is little difference between the
two, except for putative interventions later. If only set back to the
appearance of the first primitive life on earth, then at least evolution is
clearly compatible with with that kind of religious hypothesis, so there
need be no dispute.

So as far as evolution is concerned, it's only when the God-creation event
is proposed to have been relatively recent in the Earth's history, that from
an evolutionary standpoint, most of us start to feel that clear
counter-evidence is being ignored. It is then that we start to talk about
the value of the scientific method, and what it means to have a good theory
versus a disproved one.

The fact that, to us sceptics, even any kind of God hypothesis always seems
to be at least somewhat gratuitous can be discussed separately. Where ever
we can separate parts of the larger discussion we can handle it better,
since drowning us in detail, or rather downing us not so much in putative
facts, but rather drowning us in philosophical excursions and a plethora of
twisted logical points, is an abusive rhetorical tactic that purveyors of
religion have been the most successful with.

We can handle it as "theory", or we can handle it just as a collection of
unfounded assertions, but the natural human inclination to weave collections
of things or events into patterns, seduces one into theory making --
eventually even among the most religious, because that's how the human mind
works. It is a shame to neglect that beautiful tool for organizing our
thoughts and dealing with them constructively. That tool is used against us
as well, so we should be adept at using it too. And finally, I am not afraid
to accept whatever conclusion comes out of all of this. Maybe they are
right... I trust the value of knowing whatever eventually makes sense to be
to my advantage -- that's the main thing!

Since: Sep 12

Arlington, TX

#63998 Dec 8, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>The thing is my friend, you have absolutely no proofs whatsoever for your claims, and science and evolutionists have tremendous evidences and proofs. You therefore live in a world of delusions

You believe in a world where magic is a viable commodity and demons are real. Of course it is all bullsh!t and provably wrong.

I live in a world with no demons, no spirits in the sky looking over my shoulder...where logic rules. I follow the Golden Rule and don't subscribe to the evil God of your Bible.

I have a realistic world-view, you are deluded
Just because how God does something isn't understood does not make it magic.
300 years ago air conditioning would have seemed like magic.
100 years ago man on the moon would have been science fiction and magic
60 years ago cell phones would have been impossible.
Just because we don't understand how it is done doesn't mean we won't ever.

Since: Sep 12

Arlington, TX

#63999 Dec 8, 2012
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>Moses did not set anything into law. They are god's laws and jesus said that you must follow them.

What do I want you to do about it? Nothing! You did as much as I could ask for. You said that your god's laws are brutal. I would add, they are evil. I don't waste my time hoping that you would admit that!
Oh so now you are saying God wrote the bible and Jesus edited it. Pfft I don't even believe that.

Since: Nov 12

Raymond, Canada

#64000 Dec 8, 2012
krissy wrote:
So, what says the thread about the upcoming Mayan End-O-Times Fiesta?
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Rubbish
The most disappointing thing about it is that there is no way to make money by betting against it, since none of the believers are willing to bet they are right, because they figure they will never be able to collect. Therefore I can't get any takers.:-(

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#64001 Dec 8, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
Just because how God does something isn't understood does not make it magic.
300 years ago air conditioning would have seemed like magic.
Did people ever claim that there was a giant invisible air conditioner that judged and punished us?
FREE SERVANT
#64002 Dec 8, 2012
I have seen evidence that ocean water was once over the hills of Kentucky. The man that showed it to me is a world renowned agate expert, but what he found wasn't an agate and it could only have came from the ocean.

Since: Sep 12

Arlington, TX

#64003 Dec 8, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>krissy wrote:
So, what says the thread about the upcoming Mayan End-O-Times Fiesta?

The most disappointing thing about it is that there is no way to make money by betting against it, since none of the believers are willing to bet they are right, because they figure they will never be able to collect. Therefore I can't get any takers.:-(
I think the poor man who was writing that calendar just got bored and stopped

Since: Sep 12

Arlington, TX

#64004 Dec 8, 2012
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>Did people ever claim that there was a giant invisible air conditioner that judged and punished us?
Try again at the point and come back when your stupid isn't showing.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#64005 Dec 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
And Maz is still repeating her bogus claim of genetic deterioration.
Maz, the articles you find don't support you. They are lab studies where they took away half of the evolutionary process. They are only studying random mutation. You and all of your other creatard friends conveniently keep forgetting the other half of the equation; naturals selection.
Yes, it is easy to debunk evolution, if you only allow half of it. You will see creatards claim "Random mutation alone will not cause evolution" or "Random selection will only go so far". And both of these statements are true on their own and they are both LIES since they ignore the other half of the driving process of evolution.
Keep on making your busted claims Maz and we will keep busting them. You are only fooling yourself and your creatard friends. At least you outperform Russell in that regard.
You need to remember your own words that lab studies take away half of the equation which speaks to research credibility to begin with. Lab studies are at least observation and rely less on algorithmic magic.

You have not overturned any of my 6 points yet. Now you want to say that the data on the deteriorating genome and epistasis is what?...Not the entire story! Congratulations!

You tell me of a bit that makes such a huge difference to any point I have made.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64006 Dec 8, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
I have seen evidence that ocean water was once over the hills of Kentucky. The man that showed it to me is a world renowned agate expert, but what he found wasn't an agate and it could only have came from the ocean.
Yes, geology explains that. The flood does not.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#64007 Dec 8, 2012
Subby

I said there are limits to adaptation. I have presented data that speaks to limits to adaptation. These are the negative effects and restrictions produced by accumulating beneficial mutations as well as the degenerating genome. Of course evos theorize further how these do not stop adaptation. However you do not have credible evidence of this as it is based on speculation.

Your data may not falsify TOE according to evos but it does present limits to adaptation;... which is what I am looking for in supporting my claim, adaptation is limited. Is the connection to difficult for you to grasp?. Evo researchers then speculate further of course as to why and how this can go on for billions of years and not grind to a halt.

These above are not LIES. My assertions are based on factual information and below is another example. The fall of man however explains why a genome created perfectly and fully functional is now deteriorating and why mankind suffers so many diseases.

What other driving force of evolution are you refering to that addresses deterioration? Is it the intelligent genome that knows which mutation will be beneficial or deleterious at any given time to irradicate? So far it appears to not have done so well!

Take this for example..

"We estimate that humans and chimpanzees have accumulated approximately 140,000 slightly deleterious mutations each, mutations that would have been eliminated by selection in murids. These mutations have small effects, since it can be inferred that they have selection coefficients less than 1/Ne for hominids, i.e., less than 10&#8722;4. It should be noted that it is unlikely that the mutation accumulation is due to a recent relaxation of natural selection in humans due to an improvement in our living conditions [32], since the time of this improvement is short relative the overall length of human evolution. We would not expect the decline in fitness to continue indefinitely, since the absolute strength of selection on new mutations, both advantageous and deleterious, may increase as fitness declines [33]. Furthermore, this accumulation of deleterious mutations may have been compensated in part by adaptive substitutions in gene expression control regions and elsewhere in the genome."
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...

The science of maybe, unlikely and perhaps explains it all....

Note above evos find the accumulation of deleterious mutations is called small effect when we can see all the diseases that affect mankind and no other, and they do not EXPECT the decline in fitness to continue because of bla. Actually the entire thing is algorithmic bla, but that is what you guys have got.

The data suggests in this study the human genome is deteriorating and then they go on to infer and speculate as to why this won't continue, the same for the Y chromosome.

So would you like to try and tell me exactly which nail I am not hitting on the head here?

It is not about debunking TOE. I have presented 6 ways I can support creationism. This is in counter to evos saying creos can never present support. Some of these also suggest TOE is challenged, but that is just the icing on the cake.

What have you got that is so convincing to you that you call your self an evolutionist rather than a parrot?

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
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 1 min Princess Hey 33,637
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 4 min On this Day 4,032
Post "any three words" (Sep '12) 23 min Bezeer 3,302
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 24 min Bezeer 14,494
Add a Word remove a Word (Oct '13) 24 min Bezeer 4,111
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 28 min Princess Hey 147,148
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 39 min Denny CranesPlace 20,105
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 43 min Denny CranesPlace 61,372
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 hr the Devil 200,690
2words into 2new words (May '12) 5 hr GLEN CARTER 5,017
News Police Respond To St. Cloud Mall On Reports Of ... 5 hr Newt G s Next Wife 128
More from around the web