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.

FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#63978 Dec 8, 2012
Regarding the Mayan calendar, I think it goes back to a time just after the flood. I believe there were giants on earth in the days before the flood and they knew about earth cycles, their science was accurate and they were renown men who lived to be hundreds of years of age. Noah had a son Ham who had a son Cush who begat Nimrod and I believe he spread his kingdom throughout the world. I believe the altar that Noah built just after the flood remained a part of Nimrods kingdom and misguided religious practices in the form of pyramids. The calander was accurate and Nimrod spread his religion and science which reached Mexico by ocean current travel from China and on through South America by the chosen priest. We all know that they said they were trying to make a name for themselves lest they would be scattered upon the face of the whole earth (GEN 11) and the LORD did scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Elkton, MD

#63979 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You can keep chasing yout tail and getting lost in your own evolutionary terms and taking strolls down the path to evasion. You may have many questions and you sit along side your evolutionary researchers that also have more questions than answers. Does that make them idiots or do you just get jollies by being a hypocrite?
I don't need to get sucked into the mire of evolutionary conundrums to establish that creos got it right and you got it wrong.
Deteriorating genomes do not result in poofing into non coding dna and if you were as smart as you would like to think you are you would already know that and that your questions are irrelevant to the point, 1 of 6, I am making.
Here is another example apart from deletion.
"It therefore seems likely that the lack of conservation and increased rate of gene expression divergence are caused by a reduction in the effectiveness of natural selection against deleterious mutations because of the low effective population sizes of hominids. This has resulted in the accumulation of a large number of deleterious mutations in sequences containing gene control elements and hence a widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees."
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
The point being creationists could predict non coding dna having function and evolutionists apparently could not. Evos have just added to the great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past and the libraries of outdated and wrong information.
It contains docking sites where proteins can stick and switch genes on or off. Or it is read and ‘transcribed’ into molecules of RNA. Or it controls whether nearby genes are transcribed (promoters; more than 70,000 of these). Or it influences the activity of other genes, sometimes across great distances (enhancers; more than 400,000 of these). Or it affects how DNA is folded and packaged. Something.
According to ENCODE’s analysis, 80 percent of the genome has a “biochemical function”. More on exactly what this means later, but the key point is: It’s not “junk”. Scientists have long recognised that some non-coding DNA has a function, and more and more solid examples have come to light [edited for clarity - Ed]. But, many maintained that much of these sequences were, indeed, junk. ENCODE says otherwise.“Almost every nucleotide is associated with a function of some sort or another, and we now know where they are, what binds to them, what their associations are, and more,” says Tom Gingeras, one of the study’s many senior scientists.
And what’s in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project’s Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described “cat-herder-in-chief”. He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion.“It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,” says Birney.“We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.”
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
So you can keep your questions on genomic noise and mutation fixation, which you likely can't answer yourself with more than a maybe. Understand that the fact that evos got their claims around non coding dna wrong has been established and they could make no prediction is also established.
So deletion is the only kind of mutation?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63980 Dec 8, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Regarding the Mayan calendar, I think it goes back to a time just after the flood. I believe there were giants on earth in the days before the flood and they knew about earth cycles, their science was accurate and they were renown men who lived to be hundreds of years of age. Noah had a son Ham who had a son Cush who begat Nimrod and I believe he spread his kingdom throughout the world. I believe the altar that Noah built just after the flood remained a part of Nimrods kingdom and misguided religious practices in the form of pyramids. The calander was accurate and Nimrod spread his religion and science which reached Mexico by ocean current travel from China and on through South America by the chosen priest. We all know that they said they were trying to make a name for themselves lest they would be scattered upon the face of the whole earth (GEN 11) and the LORD did scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
I think you believe that afarensis could talk and was a biblical person. That was what the last person that spoke of begats to me had to say.

You do realize, don't you, that this is an evolution/creation debating thread. I also get sucked into talking philosophy with evos. Philosophy is much easier than science and one can chase around for years.

The biblical end of days will come at a time unexpected. I'd say the Mayan calandar thing would qualify, but I very much doubt it. The thing is they have actually found more Mayan calandar anyway. Mayans believe in cycles of change not catastrophe.
Linda the lonely widow

Bolingbrook, IL

#63981 Dec 8, 2012
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>are you a dude
What do you think dumbass
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#63982 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you believe that afarensis could talk and was a biblical person. That was what the last person that spoke of begats to me had to say.
You do realize, don't you, that this is an evolution/creation debating thread. I also get sucked into talking philosophy with evos. Philosophy is much easier than science and one can chase around for years.
The biblical end of days will come at a time unexpected. I'd say the Mayan calandar thing would qualify, but I very much doubt it. The thing is they have actually found more Mayan calandar anyway. Mayans believe in cycles of change not catastrophe.
Yes, they believed in cycles, we know that for sure!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63983 Dec 8, 2012
Tyler Across the Galaxy wrote:
<quoted text>
So deletion is the only kind of mutation?
Why? Don't you know? Of course deletion is not the only form of what evolutionists call a mutation.

Again, that has nothing to do with you lot getting all your hubris around junk dna wrong and creos getting a prediction validiated on the back of it. Neither has that anything to do with data that suggests the genome is deteriorating that also has nothing to do with non coding DNA per se. That is what my point 1 is about. You want to chase around with nonsense just to justify your existence here!

You cannot refute me. No 'junk' validates a creo prediction and is support for a creationist paradigm. Evos got it wrong, should not have shoved it at creos as evidence for TOE in the first place, and will now toddle off an invent some story to explain why the oppposite of what they thought still supports TOE.

Now I see evobabble questions are the strategy of choice to engage with my point 1 of 6 supports for a creationist paradigm, is that it?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#63984 Dec 8, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Regarding the Mayan calendar, I think it goes back to a time just after the flood. I believe there were giants on earth in the days before the flood and they knew about earth cycles, their science was accurate and they were renown men who lived to be hundreds of years of age. Noah had a son Ham who had a son Cush who begat Nimrod and I believe he spread his kingdom throughout the world. I believe the altar that Noah built just after the flood remained a part of Nimrods kingdom and misguided religious practices in the form of pyramids. The calander was accurate and Nimrod spread his religion and science which reached Mexico by ocean current travel from China and on through South America by the chosen priest. We all know that they said they were trying to make a name for themselves lest they would be scattered upon the face of the whole earth (GEN 11) and the LORD did scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
Sounds like you got ahold of some of that brown acid.

They tried to warn you...

“cdesign proponentsists”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#63985 Dec 8, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
As slavery was a fact of the day.
Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."
I've never owned and will never own a slave. I've also never built an ark hung anyone on a cross killed my children for disobedience stoned anyone (with a rock) beaten my wife owned a donkey fled with my people from Egypt or raped nor do I think rape is ok.
I do not agree with slavery or genocide.
The things Moses set into law where brutal to say the least the things God told them to do I don't agree with.
God didn't and isn't going to ask my opinion before he does or says things. So what do you want me to do about it?
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!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63986 Dec 8, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Evotards have three words too,....Goo dun it!
Yep, Evos have their mountains of outdated hubris and falsifications as theri journey into the light and need more faith than any theist, I reckon.

An Alien life form that they theorize very likely exists, could not exist unless it is in organic terms they can describe and understand. This is the underlying logic I think these atheists rest on.

It is more plausible to believe life began with the hand of God than to suggest non living elements could organize themselves into a complex factory of reproduction.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#63987 Dec 8, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like you got ahold of some of that brown acid.
They tried to warn you...
Nope I don't do dope!!!!!
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#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

Milk River, 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!

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) 5 min I Am No One_ 161,338
News Michael Jackson went to great lengths for stran... 16 min An NFL Fan 3
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... 19 min I Am No One_ 745
Bill & Hillary ( Haiti Earthquake ) 33 min Mega Monster 6
News Manure trade show's slogan contest produces pil... 37 min Hoosier Hillbilly 9
Now she's really gone and done it! 40 min Hoosier Hillbilly 7
News College's goat- and sheep-guarding donkey has s... 40 min DILF 1
motorcycle traveling stories 42 min Mega Monster 622
News The trooper fired at the motorcycle, and then d... 59 min Mega Monster 77
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr Stupid Bill 18,183
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 1 hr DILF 66
More from around the web