Evolution vs. Creation

There are 162168 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.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#64856 Dec 12, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are also WRONG about a lot of what is written in the Bible--because parts of it ARE in FACT, glimpses of things that DID happen-like it or NOT.
I say to you that many stories in the Bible are just mythical tales...they never happened in real life. You try to prove me wrong.
The earth is 4.5+- billion years old.
Adam and Eve never existed.
Noah's world-wide flood never happened.
The 'Tower of Babel' never happened.
The Exodus never happened.
Joshua's conquest of Jericho and other cities never happened.
Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible (Pentateuch).

All of the above are provable...and they put a real dent into the believability of Christianity.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64857 Dec 12, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Quotes from the article:
"In trying to explain how life came to exist, people have been fixated on a problem of chemistry, that bringing life into being is like baking a cake, that we have ingredients and instructions to follow said co author Paul Davies a theoretical physicist and astrobiologist at Arizona state university.That approach is failing to capture the esscence of what life is about."
A terrible commentary about the church of the puddle gooists
or this comment:
Part of the problem is that there isn't really a good definition of what life is?"
Sara Walker co author and astrobiologist at Arizona state.
So my dear puddle people
It seems that life isn't about just organizing chemicals, there's something science can't grasp about, and like a monkey fumbling with a combination lock the faithful keep claiming, give us more time,give us more time, and we'll solve it.Yeah right!
I see. So because we don't know everything yet then that makes your personal incredulity a valid argument therefore it was all done by an invisible magic Jew?

And if you were living in Newton's age you would also be laughing at gravitationalists at ever thinking they could POSSIBLY predict the correct orbit of Mercury since even Newton's so-called "law" of gravity couldn't do it.

Guess what we can do now?

You laugh at scientists for being monkeys fumbling around in the dark. Yet that fumbling has given you all your modern benefits that you enjoy every day. And yet still you laugh. While you sit there on your fat lazy azz.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64858 Dec 12, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Then you should start behaving as one who understands the bible.
How do you know I don't?

Answer - you don't. Period.

Sorry if you don't like that.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64859 Dec 12, 2012
Cybele wrote:
I was making a point. That science supports the notion that there could be alien life on other planets.
Yes it does. And I've always agreed.
Cybele wrote:
Here is a more recent article:
http://news.discovery.com/space/has-evidence-...

[QUOTE who="Cybele"]I never mentioned anything about grey lizards.
Me neither. But you have claimed Earth was seeded by aliens "designing" life, whereas if these links you were presenting me with were supportive of any kind of "alien" theory it would be more like non-directed panspermia.

Oh, and if you read your own links further they showed just a wee bit more skepticism than you did. Or have you been taking lessons of the creationists and decided to claim links that don't support you really do even when they really don't?
Cybele wrote:
No thanks to 'real science.' I don't deny the evidence of fossil records. But I am not naive to the fact that fossils have been forged to show evidence for missing links such as the Archaeopteryx or the piltdown man. I'm sure there's more.
Actually yes, you are EXTREEEEEEEEMELY naive. UTTERLY naive. TOTALLY naive. COMPLETELY naive. EXTREMELY UTTERLY TOTALLY and COMPLETELY naive.

Why?

Because you've bought into a few soundbites from a bunch of ignorant superstitious reality-denying hicks who believe that all science is wrong because it was all magically poofed into existence by an invisible Jewish wizard 6,000 years ago.

Like I said - archaeoraptor (the faked Chinese fossil you were referring to) was discovered to be a fake because dinosaur experts (evolutionary scientists) spotted the forgery, using science you reject. Piltdown Man is another example of a forgery which was exposed by experts using evolutionary science you reject. But creationists still mention it because they require the ad-hom of linking a forgery to evolution because they can't deal with scientific reality. Archaeopteryx on the other hand is NOT a fake. We have at least ten of them. A fine example of a transitional fossil, so much so that creationists will say absolutely anything to avoid accepting the fact it's a transitional - they've called it fake, just a dino and just a bird. Anything but exactly what it is - an organism with both dino *and* bird features, EXACTLY as predicted by evolution. They even go as far as calling it a "mosaic", which is really just a crappy way of saying it's a transitional but they just don't have the guts to admit it.

So let's put it politely, science is NOT your strong suit.

At all.
Cybele wrote:
I don't reject real science. I said evolution is a THEORY just like the Big Bang.
And in case you haven't noticed, both those theories are accepted by the scientific community. The reason being they both make valid predictions based on observable phenomena. The Big Bang for example predicted background radiation to an accuracy of 3 parts per million IIRC.

Creationists only offer magic as an alternative. You offer ZIP as an alternative. Except for the claim that abiogenesis was due to aliens popping by in a flying saucer.

Which has zero evidence.

So uh, yeah, you ARE a science denier. You don't know very much about science and are just one of the millions of throngs of people who think that complete ignorance of a subject is a PERFECT place from which to critique science.

This is why no-one takes you seriously.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64860 Dec 12, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Achaeopteryx is a FAKE? Really? Which one of the TEN specimins found is fake?(hint....Archy is evidence of a REAL organism).
Despite Cybele's claim of being able to understand science due to their science "education", it's possible that he/she didn't know the difference between archaeoraptor and archaeopteryx.

Either that or some dumb creo on the internet claimed archaeopteryx was a fake and they bought it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64861 Dec 12, 2012
MazHere wrote:
You don't even know what you are talking about do you? My question is the start of the argument I am presenting but you are too silly to see it.
You are too uneducated to even see any argument Subby. We get 4000 words in a post, not the space to write a book. It is going to be one point at a time, just like our discussion on junk dna.
Your prediction that data will continue to align is not a scientific prediction. Does TOE predict functionality, no functionality, it doesn't matter because anything will be shown to support TOE. IOW TOE has little to NO predictive ability. TOE is not a science.
Exactly what scientific basis do evolutionists use to determine if a so called erv is ancestral or independently inserted?
The answer is your own philosophical asumptions of common ancestry. The ervs that do not align are automatically determined to be inserted after separation and the ones that pop up where they shouldn't be is hand waved away as a matter of convergent evolution.
The problem with believing we share a common ancestor with a chimp can also be an issue of time. It is one thing to have millions of different base pairs separating chimps and humans, but if we both came from a common ancestor, that means our differences would have been caused by mutations in our genetic material after we split away from our ancestors.
Hey Maz, since all this has been dealt with already where's this warm up you were talking about?(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
The problem: Per evolutionary models humans and chimps split off about 300,000 generations ago. In order to account for the vast amount of genetic differences between us, we would have to have had experienced about 133 genetic mutations in each generation.
Which is not a problem. We already know all humans are born with around 125 to 175 mutations. Even creationists agree with this. In fact if I recall you even put the number as high as 300, which is possible, but that's very likely higher than average. And as you recall (or not) I already demonstrated that based on the normal average mutation rates puts common ancestry between humans and chimps approximately 6-7MYA, which ties in with the fossil record.
MazHere wrote:
That many mutations in such a short amount of time is absurd, and is commonly known as Haldane’s Dilemma.
Oh, that old thing. You mean that thing where Haldane himself admitted that Haldane's Dilemma was in fact actually *only* Haldane's dilemma?

Do you notice that (once again) you've moved the goalposts onto another further subject without addressing your previous mistakes which have already destroyed your own arguments?

You're a runner who started on a false start and you're still running and claiming to be ahead of everyone else. Sorry Maz.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64862 Dec 12, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
The feather imprints? It's a dinosaur not dino-bird. LOL
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx_i...
But it's a bird! It's got feathers, wishbone, hollow bones, bird-like skeleton and feet, and can fly!

Oh and um, Cy, the linky you linked to sez you're full of shite.

So never mind science, READING isn't really your strong suit either.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64863 Dec 12, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
We have already been all over arch with Subby.
Feathers were found on TRex and are not solely an avian trait.
Uh, yes. We know.(shrug) That is the entire POINT.

The dino-bird connection was proposed long before we started finding feathers on dinosaurs.

In other words, evolution made a successful prediction that you're unable to address and you're ignoring it.
MazHere wrote:
Feathers sprouting on arch, with no dino connection, would be intermediate, however they are not.
The beak is not a beak at all and is shared amongst many different species.
That is on top of having perfectly modern bird footprints dated to 212mya whilst arch did not have a reversed hallux.
Sub's been over this with you a dozen times. All you can do is repeat your fallacy without directly addressing him. Now go find us a modern bird before basal dinos then maybe we have a problem. Yes, we DO have "modern" bird-like feet going back millions of years ago. Do we have modern birds going back that far? I'd sure like to see a modern day robin, eagle or vulture back in those days, wouldn't you?

Answer - yes you suuuuuure would!
MazHere wrote:
And Yes, there have been forgeries, indeed, but not all are thought to be forgeries at this time. Maybe the forgers got better at it.
Ah, so you're covering your bases, eh? In other words you can't decide yourself whether it's real, fake, bird, dino, whatever. Pick one and stick to it.

But you can't. That's why if some little tidbit of info is found later which you inevitably find theologically inconvenient you can then just scream "FAKE!"
MazHere wrote:
It is obvious that all the so called 'bird' traits arch had are now dino traits and not exclusively aves. The reversed hallux, was around before arch so evos can struggle as much as they like but their explanation of the footprints is an unknown and undiscovered mythical theropod because evos can't have modern birds flapping around 212mya. IOW you have invented a myth as a handwave.
Since birds are classed as theropods which have been around for 230MY, it's not really a problem, no.

And after months and months and months of dishonest hypocritical behavior from you Maz, you've still yet to address the NUMEROUS flaws of your own posts. Why is that I wonder?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64864 Dec 12, 2012
MazHere wrote:
This is yet another example of a supposed virus hitting the germ line and immediately becoming an integral part of a system, which is impossible. Refute with research if you wish but I have grown weary of your hummble opinion, circular discussion, evasion and laziness in researching and providing appropriate responses. You chose this topic, now go learn something about it, instead of wasting your entire day, every day, on line talking in circles.
Already done. At what point was immediacy ever claimed?

Answer - you're arguing against a straw-man.
MazHere wrote:
I am actually presenting the start of an argument in this simple question you have refused to answer.
Exactly what scientific basis do evolutionists use to determine if a so called erv is ancestral or independently inserted?
If you don't know, just say so. If the correct answer is too obviously biased to speak to then just keep evading it.
Irony meter go boom.

You've been evading me for 2 months.
MazHere wrote:
I have given my answer to the question, now it's your turn seeing as you'd like to think you know what an acestral gene might be.
Yes, you have given your "answer". Unfortunately so far it's just baseless BS. Goddidit with magic doesn't actually EXPLAIN anything.

SO!

It turns out that Maz STILL suffers from the same problems which have yet to be addressed:

1 - An explanation (and evidence) of the mechanism that produced them.

2 - Reason for orthology consistent with nested hierarchies.

3 - Reason why they look like ERVs.

4 - Why they act like retroviruses when put together artificially.

5 - Why ortholog markers show differences consistent with nested hierarchies and genetic drift.

6 - Why they are even referred to as ERVs in the first place if they are not actually ERVs.

7 - Why they are using evolutionary evidence they claim doesn't even work because the Earth wasn't even around then.

8 - Why they are claiming their BS is scientific when their alternative is Godmagic.

9 - Why bother talking about evidence as it's irrelevant to magic.

10 - Why they keep lying.

Keep skipping, skippy.
Jesus Diablo

Plymouth, MN

#64865 Dec 12, 2012
The purpose of creationism is not to enlighten, but rather to support and prove the existence of God. As a logical argument, it fails (i.e., it's invalid) because the necessary first premise--"There is a God"--is also the conclusion. A classical example of irrationality and really poor reasoning.

Hence, those who argue in favor of creationism are demonstrating poor reasoning skills and are being irrational.

You creationist will never ever win creationism arguments by using scientific tools (the very thing you hate); similarly, supporters of science will never win arguments about science by relying on beliefs.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64866 Dec 12, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You have already lost this debate Subby. Arch does not have a reversed hallux which was around 212mya and before arch.
Hence, as I said, you can wiggle and struggle and present anything you like and it will not be and cannot be an intermediate because modern birds were already here before arch and I have the dated footprints to support that claim. You have a mythical theropod. It is really that simple.
No, I won the debate. Not having a reversed hallux is an excellent characteristic of a transitional fossil. It will not have ALL avian characteristics. You know what we call animals that have only avian traits? Birds. You truly are intent on illustrating that you have no clue about what would constitute a transitional species.

When you come up with something other than just "bird like" foot prints then you might have a claim. Until then, you lose.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64867 Dec 12, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
What caused life to begin where there had never been life before? Science has repeatedly demonstrated that life comes only from life.
Which is incorrect.

You were not alive. Now you are. Everything you are was once made up of non-living elements.

Ergo, life from non-life.

In fact your very first question itself violates your own premise. Life beginning where there was once no life before.

Life from non-life.

It's called abiogenesis.

HOW it happened is another question. Natural causes? Or magic Jew?

Either way it has no bearing on the validity of evolution.
Knightmare wrote:
This is a law of science called the "Law of Biogenesis."
... which I'm afraid is only bastardized by creationists, as it was only referring to the once held belief that fully-formed organisms could arise where none were before, such as maggots in rotting meat. Then people realised bugs laid eggs in corpses. It did not address the possibility of life developing over time from naturally occurring chemical processes however.
Knightmare wrote:
The opposite of this law would be spontaneous generation - life beginning spontaneously from non-living matter. But science has repeatedly proved this cannot happen.
In other words, the 'Law of Biogenesis' falsified creationism.

Well, except for the bit about where it's fixed by magic. Nothing can falsify that.
Knightmare wrote:
So every living thing must come from a previous living thing. You received life from your parents, who in turn received it from their parents, etc. The same is true for all living things.
Ah, the infinite regression fallacy. Since God, what you call a "living thing" did NOT have to come from a previous living thing. Hence you've just violated your own premise.
Knightmare wrote:
But evolution requires that, when you go back far enough, non-living matter somehow came to life by chance where there was no life before.
Chemistry is not "chance".

So Kay, since this has been pointed out to you like a thousand times over, why are you repeating this creationist lie? You WANT to be thought of as a big liar for Jesus ahole such as Maz and Russ? Really?
Knightmare wrote:
Evolution requires spontaneous generation in complete violation of scientific evidence.
Nope, not evolution. Creationism requires spontaneous generation in complete violation of scientific evidence.

Magic poof! Animals!

Spontaneous generation.

Creationism.

Evolution doesn't care whether it was magically poofed or not. All it requires is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you have to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.

Good luck.
Knightmare wrote:
So evolution cannot explain even the origin of the very first form of life.
And it doesn't have to. For the very same reason that gravity doesn't have to explain the origin of mass.

The criticism you make, now shown to be baseless, is also quite hypocritical. As Goddidit with magic doesn't actually explain anything either.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64868 Dec 12, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Listen Pal, the fact that you evos quack, adnauseum, about your science yet run away from it. That's why fools like you stay away from the likes of scientific discussion and prefer to prattle on hearing youself quack.
All you lot are on this thread for is to get your jollies for the day in bigotted ridicule.
Ya know, you're putting Earth in danger by overloading all them irony meters, Maz.
MazHere wrote:
TOE is taught in schools because the public has been fooled into thinking these evo reseachers know what they are talking about.
TOE is a waste of paper and any biology student can throw out any text book by the time it hits the book shelf because some its claims will have already been falsified or outdated. You have libraries of waffle that have been falsified.
So when's your face gonna appear on Time magazine then? When's your Nobel Prize coming?

Kinda like your rebuttals, eh? Wait until Jesus comes back?
MazHere wrote:
If you had a scientific bone in your entire body you'd be on here defending this science of yours, which you are not.
Again, irony meters up full. What's your "scientific alternative" again?

Oh yeah - GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC!

Very scientific.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64869 Dec 12, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on you evos with big attitudes and not much more....
Exactly what scientific basis do evolutionists use to determine if a so called erv is ancestral or independently inserted?
This is the sort of nonssense you lot believe. Why? Is it because you are sheep that follow without understanding, or are you geese that just like to quack for the heck of it.
I have given my answer, now you lot egocentrics tell me your own, or can't you, or are you too embarassed to.
Already answered Maz.

Just like many others of your posts have been answered and in turn remain unaddressed by you.

Any time ya like Maz.

Gimme all your lovin'.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64870 Dec 12, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you did not pick it up, I am saying these are NOT ancestral genes and I am presenting an argument as to why they are not, one point at a time starting here.
The reason they are not ancestral is because evos can't tell the difference between an ancestral or independently acquired ervs and they basically handwave away inconsistency with a plethora of terminology.
Now answer the question, how do they tell the differrence?
Already answered Maz.

Your perfectly designed eyes giving you a problem? Or they a little poor now since TEH FALL?

Creationism can't tell either way can it? If it's good then it's designed and if it's bad it's Teh Fall. Just as long as evolution is wrong no matter what. Even if you (pretend to) use science you don't even believe in anyway.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64871 Dec 12, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you did not pick it up, I am saying these are NOT ancestral genes and I am presenting an argument as to why they are not, one point at a time starting here.
The reason they are not ancestral is because evos can't tell the difference between an ancestral or independently acquired ervs and they basically handwave away inconsistency with a plethora of terminology.
Now answer the question, how do they tell the differrence?
You fool!

You don't pay too much attention. Ancestral genes and ERV's are two DIFFERENT topics. Ancestral genes are genes that are now turned off. Genes from an ancestor. In chickens we have found ancestral genes for teeth, scales, dinosaur tales, and dinosaur claws on the front of the wings. Those are ancestral genes. ERV's are totally different.

We have not found ancestral genes in humans, can you guess why?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64872 Dec 12, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You have already lost this debate Subby. Arch does not have a reversed hallux which was around 212mya and before arch.
Hence, as I said, you can wiggle and struggle and present anything you like and it will not be and cannot be an intermediate because modern birds were already here before arch and I have the dated footprints to support that claim. You have a mythical theropod. It is really that simple.
Anyone say Arch was the first?(shrug)

Why are you referring to phenomena that existed before the Earth was magically poofed into existence 6,000 years ago anyway?

Don't worry, we already know.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#64873 Dec 12, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>

Because you've bought into a few soundbites from a bunch of ignorant superstitious reality-denying hicks who believe that all science is wrong because it was all magically poofed into existence by an invisible Jewish wizard 6,000 years ago.
Like I said - archaeoraptor (the faked Chinese fossil you were referring to) was discovered to be a fake because dinosaur experts (evolutionary scientists) spotted the forgery, using science you reject. Piltdown Man is another example of a forgery which was exposed by experts using evolutionary science you reject. But creationists still mention it because they require the ad-hom of linking a forgery to evolution because they can't deal with scientific reality. Archaeopteryx on the other hand is NOT a fake. We have at least ten of them. A fine example of a transitional fossil, so much so that creationists will say absolutely anything to avoid accepting the fact it's a transitional - they've called it fake, just a dino and just a bird. Anything but exactly what it is - an organism with both dino *and* bird features, EXACTLY as predicted by evolution. They even go as far as calling it a "mosaic", which is really just a crappy way of saying it's a transitional but they just don't have the guts to admit it.
So let's put it politely, science is NOT your strong suit.
At all.
Yah that dino-bird is no more real than a flying fish (discovered where else - China) LOL.

Thanks to evolution, we could probably evolve into some alien-like species with larger brains and colonize the moon.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And in case you haven't noticed, both those theories are accepted by the scientific community. The reason being they both make valid predictions based on observable phenomena. The Big Bang for example predicted background radiation to an accuracy of 3 parts per million IIRC.
Are you aware that there are scientists that object the Big Bang?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationists only offer magic as an alternative. You offer ZIP as an alternative. Except for the claim that abiogenesis was due to aliens popping by in a flying saucer.
Which has zero evidence.
Ya zero evidence. Ask a pilot or an astronaut if they'd seen something out there. You'd be surprised. Maybe Carl Sagan was deluded too?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So uh, yeah, you ARE a science denier. You don't know very much about science and are just one of the millions of throngs of people who think that complete ignorance of a subject is a PERFECT place from which to critique science.
This is why no-one takes you seriously.
And you're serious? You talk like you understand everything about science. If you did, you would then at least detect its flaws (or gaps). Many modern day theories will someday get superseded or replaced. Come on even Einstein was wrong!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#64874 Dec 12, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>

We have not found ancestral genes in humans, can you guess why?
please do tell

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64875 Dec 12, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
please do tell
To find them in chickens they have to activate them in embryos. Do you think that there might be a slight moral problem with experimenting in this way with human embryos?

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
News 11 weird memes that help explain the British el... 4 min tom wingo 10
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 9 min Crazy Beautiful 8,436
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 13 min Roy 161,919
Word Association (Jun '10) 15 min Mega Monster 27,479
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 18 min CJ Rocker 918
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 30 min Chilli J 4,893
Rest in Peace, Spock 38 min Chilli J 3,434
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 1 hr Observer 10,971
News Study: Beards are filled with poop and 'as dirt... 3 hr Lawrence Wolf 48
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 4 hr Brandiiiiiiii 246
More from around the web