Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64876 Dec 12, 2012
Cybele wrote:
Yah that dino-bird is no more real than a flying fish (discovered where else - China) LOL.
Which one? You couldn't even tell them apart.(shrug) All you wanted to do was just mention a fake and blame it on evolution. I guess that means the Mona Lisa is BS because some people have faked it.
Cybele wrote:
Thanks to evolution, we could probably evolve into some alien-like species with larger brains and colonize the moon.
If it weren't for too many politicians and war-mongers with small brains we may have been able to do that decades ago.
Cybele wrote:
Are you aware that there are scientists that object the Big Bang?
And of those, how many of them are accomplished astrophysicists?

Sure, they COULD be right and the BB wrong. But until they have the weight of evidence on THEIR side we stick with the strongest theory. Plate tectonics wasn't taken very seriously at first but eventually the evidence caught up until it was difficult to deny.

But hey, we DO still have creationists.(shrug)
Cybele wrote:
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?
Um, I'm aware of a few astronauts and pilots who have claimed to have seen things, but unfortunately personal subjective alleged eyewitness events are about as reliable as those who claimed to have seen Jesus rise from the dead.

And why would I call Sagan deluded? Have I EVER at all once denied the potential existence of alien life? Bub, I already SAID that I think the likelihood is already quite likely, in fact I'd say it's a near certainty. It's just we DON'T have evidence yet because we've hardly explored the majority of our solar system yet, much less the rest of the universe. The REASON we don't have evidence yet, and quite probably never will is because the distances are too great.
Cybele wrote:
And you're serious? You talk like you understand everything about science.
No, I just understand more than you. But that's not much of a compliment.
Cybele wrote:
If you did, you would then at least detect its flaws (or gaps).
We can in EVERY scientific theory. It's normal. But scientific theories make PREDICTIONS from those gaps. That's how scientific theories work.

Then science-deniers lie and claim there are gaps where there aren't any, or exaggerate beyond the point of rationality any that DO exist. Kinda like when really dumb people (rather stupidly) ask for "the missing link", get provided with fifteen, then say there's still no evidence.
Cybele wrote:
Many modern day theories will someday get superseded or replaced. Come on even Einstein was wrong!
I've already been over this. Einstein was not wrong. Even Newton was not wrong. Newton's gravity was just inaccurate past certain scales, but still works fine for sending vehicles around Earth and to most of the solar system. Einstein's Relativity was even more accurate. And again, quantum physics is even more accurate than that. But we already know that even that's not perfect (though it's pretty darn good). But the original basic premise of gravitation is still the same. Same with evolution. By the way things are going, evolution will only get refined as more evidence comes in, but it's not likely that common ancestry itself will be completely overturned.

That's a fundie's wet dream.
Jesus Diablo

Plymouth, MN

#64877 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.
"Dated footprints"? Legitimate believers in creationism do not believe in any dating method that contradicts the idea that the Earth is only 10K or so years old.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64878 Dec 12, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
To elaborate a bit further for the slow people, deactivated genes for teeth in chickens are reactivated and the chickens grow teeth during embryological development. However this fuses the beak together, meaning they don't live very long.

So purposely reactivating ancient extinct traits in humans might not be a great idea.

.

Maz however will think (okay maybe not THINK per se) differently! Since Creationism "predicts" ALL genes have "function", and that humans have only LOST our "perfect" genetics over time due to TEH FALL, then reactivating those genes would be a GREAT idea! Imagine, for the first time we could get that much closer to Adam and Eve, and what the "perfect human" being would be like!!! Imagine all the medical knowledge gained and all the diseases we could cure!

So I don't know why they don't just go ahead and do it.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64879 Dec 12, 2012
Jesus Diablo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Dated footprints"? Legitimate believers in creationism do not believe in any dating method that contradicts the idea that the Earth is only 10K or so years old.
Oh don't worry it's okay, Maz is a massive hypocrite! Gets a free pass from God and everything. Just ignore that minor technical detail about the 9th Commandment. All's good when lying for Jesus.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64880 Dec 12, 2012
You also have to love how Maz thinks that avian traits are traits that are held only by birds. She is no limited to a reversed hallux and that alone, and that one is shaky too. She keeps referring to footprints that not even the finders of would swear are bird footprints, as evidence that birds evolved long before Archy. That may be, yet archy still could qualify as a transitional species. A transitional need not to be the actual parent species of all present birds. Another concept beyond her limited understanding.
bohart

Newport, TN

#64881 Dec 12, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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)
A typical Dude response when faced with the truth that life cannot have arsien through natural crap;

incredulity, yeah like the kind astrobiologists have
jew magic , as opposed to goo magic,
always throw in gravity as if that supports life from goo Ha,Ha
I laugh at puddle gooists who mix ingredients to make life
and always include the shruggg!
as for being lazy, I worked today

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64882 Dec 12, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
A typical Dude response when faced with the truth that life cannot have arsien through natural crap;
incredulity, yeah like the kind astrobiologists have
jew magic , as opposed to goo magic,
always throw in gravity as if that supports life from goo Ha,Ha
I laugh at puddle gooists who mix ingredients to make life
and always include the shruggg!
as for being lazy, I worked today
so you still have nothing to support your superstitious beliefs. While we have a series of successful experiments that keep getting us closer and closer to the goal of proving that life can arise on its own.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#64883 Dec 12, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Which one? You couldn't even tell them apart.(shrug) All you wanted to do was just mention a fake and blame it on evolution. I guess that means the Mona Lisa is BS because some people have faked it.
I doubt that you can tell if a fossil is real or fake. That's the problem.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If it weren't for too many politicians and war-mongers with small brains we may have been able to do that decades ago.
<quoted text>
And of those, how many of them are accomplished astrophysicists?
Sure, they COULD be right and the BB wrong. But until they have the weight of evidence on THEIR side we stick with the strongest theory. Plate tectonics wasn't taken very seriously at first but eventually the evidence caught up until it was difficult to deny.
But hey, we DO still have creationists.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Um, I'm aware of a few astronauts and pilots who have claimed to have seen things, but unfortunately personal subjective alleged eyewitness events are about as reliable as those who claimed to have seen Jesus rise from the dead.
Don't we love those politicians? Should we trust everyone in the scientific community?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>

And why would I call Sagan deluded? Have I EVER at all once denied the potential existence of alien life? Bub, I already SAID that I think the likelihood is already quite likely, in fact I'd say it's a near certainty. It's just we DON'T have evidence yet because we've hardly explored the majority of our solar system yet, much less the rest of the universe. The REASON we don't have evidence yet, and quite probably never will is because the distances are too great.
Okay I guess we can agree on this part.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I just understand more than you. But that's not much of a compliment.
No you don't, you pretend you do!
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
We can in EVERY scientific theory. It's normal. But scientific theories make PREDICTIONS from those gaps. That's how scientific theories work.
Then science-deniers lie and claim there are gaps where there aren't any, or exaggerate beyond the point of rationality any that DO exist. Kinda like when really dumb people (rather stupidly) ask for "the missing link", get provided with fifteen, then say there's still no evidence.
Actually, I've read about the transitional fossils. I have come to my own conclusions but I won't say it just yet. I still have questions and I will post when ready.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already been over this. Einstein was not wrong. Even Newton was not wrong. Newton's gravity was just inaccurate past certain scales, but still works fine for sending vehicles around Earth and to most of the solar system. Einstein's Relativity was even more accurate. And again, quantum physics is even more accurate than that. But we already know that even that's not perfect (though it's pretty darn good). But the original basic premise of gravitation is still the same. Same with evolution. By the way things are going, evolution will only get refined as more evidence comes in, but it's not likely that common ancestry itself will be completely overturned.
That's a fundie's wet dream.
So everything Einstein said was right? Are you sure about that? I'm not talking about the theory of relativity in particular. There are other things that he mentioned that are unlikely to be true.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64884 Dec 12, 2012
Maz, I have a way to check if ERV's fit the evolutionary paradigm or the creationist one.

Before I go and state what would be the creationist position on ERV's I will let you answer this question. What sort of differences should be seen between in the same ERV observed in different species?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64885 Dec 12, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
A typical Dude response when faced with the truth that life cannot have arsien through natural crap
I see, so you're still claiming that abio was falsified even though the linky you provided did NOT support that claim?

Good stuff. I see you're continuing in the creationist tradition of lying for Jesus just like many others here.

Either way, still after all this time, it STILL has no bearing on the validity of evolution.
bohart wrote:
incredulity, yeah like the kind astrobiologists have
jew magic , as opposed to goo magic
Actually since they are actually conducting RESEARCH, no, they are not incredulous. And if abio ever DOES get falsified, which is no biggie for me by the way, your boys could never take the credit. It would still be the credit of all the scientists who you like to fling poo at for giving you all your modern comforts.
bohart wrote:
always throw in gravity as if that supports life from goo Ha,Ha
When did I ever claim that? Post and page number please. Or were you just lying?

Again.

Sorry, just demonstrating a point that you can never ever ever ever ever address.

That evolution remains unaffected.

By all means invoke magical poof for the origin of life away. It has no bearing on the theory of evolution.

I've been pointing that out to you for a year.(shrug)
bohart wrote:
I laugh at puddle gooists who mix ingredients to make life
and always include the shruggg!
as for being lazy, I worked today
Really? Isn't that supposed to be a sin or something?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64886 Dec 12, 2012
Sorry, someone was talking to me and I screwed up my question a bit.

Mav, you know that the same ERV can be observed in the same location in different species. What sort of differences does creationism predict? I know what sort of differences evolution will predict.
bohart

Newport, TN

#64887 Dec 12, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
so you still have nothing to support your superstitious beliefs. While we have a series of successful experiments that keep getting us closer and closer to the goal of proving that life can arise on its own.
You have jack shit in the way of successful experiments, all you have is faith.

Hey those astrobiologists are suffering from incredulity, maybe you can label them creotards, go further , discredit their credentials and put them on a puddle goo blackliST ,you know the one with Dembski, Behe , etc,etc, etc.Banish the blasphemers of your religion! you evotard cleric, hurry, issue the gooist fatwah!

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#64888 Dec 12, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Are you aware that there are scientists that object the Big Bang?
<quoted text>
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?
<quoted text>
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!
If you are referring to relativity, Einstein was not wrong. His theory just doesn't go far enough and is an incomplete answer. The same can be said for Newton's theory.

In either case, they are still useful and not dead or wrong.
bohart

Newport, TN

#64889 Dec 12, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I see, so you're still claiming that abio was falsified even though the linky you provided did NOT support that claim?
Good stuff. I see you're continuing in the creationist tradition of lying for Jesus just like many others here.
Either way, still after all this time, it STILL has no bearing on the validity of evolution.
<quoted text>
Actually since they are actually conducting RESEARCH, no, they are not incredulous. And if abio ever DOES get falsified, which is no biggie for me by the way, your boys could never take the credit. It would still be the credit of all the scientists who you like to fling poo at for giving you all your modern comforts.
<quoted text>
When did I ever claim that? Post and page number please. Or were you just lying?
Again.
Sorry, just demonstrating a point that you can never ever ever ever ever address.
That evolution remains unaffected.
By all means invoke magical poof for the origin of life away. It has no bearing on the theory of evolution.
I've been pointing that out to you for a year.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Really? Isn't that supposed to be a sin or something?
Keep editing posts goober, all you puddle gooists always equate believing in evolution with the believeing in gravity.The article clearly points out that science has no clue how life began, yet puddle gooists LEAP to the naturalistc abio theory with nothing but faith in one hand and shit in the other and they throw both with equal enthusiasm.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#64890 Dec 12, 2012
The problem with intelligent alien life isn't whether or not they exist. It is just that we don't have any real, substantive evidence that any exist or have ever visited this world.

Anything claimed to be evidence can be explained as evidence of other phenomenon more easily and cridibly.

I would love to know we have neighbors, but if we do and they have dropped by, they are cleaner than we are. No litter, no leftover bases, no signs, dropped items and all the man made items attributed to them have more reasonable explanations supporting their existence. Wishfull thinking, dreams and desires are not evidence.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#64891 Dec 12, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You have jack shit in the way of successful experiments, all you have is faith.
Hey those astrobiologists are suffering from incredulity, maybe you can label them creotards, go further , discredit their credentials and put them on a puddle goo blackliST ,you know the one with Dembski, Behe , etc,etc, etc.Banish the blasphemers of your religion! you evotard cleric, hurry, issue the gooist fatwah!
Are you OK. Do you need me to call and ambulance?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64892 Dec 12, 2012
Cybele wrote:
I doubt that you can tell if a fossil is real or fake. That's the problem.
I'm not an expert at spotting forgeries, but on the other hand I CAN tell the difference between archaeoraptor and archaeopteryx.

You could not.
Cybele wrote:
Don't we love those politicians? Should we trust everyone in the scientific community?
Then in that case if you REALLY think that scientists are really THAT untrustworthy and all hundreds of thousands of them across the planet really are involved in that big world-wide evil atheist Darwinist evolutionist Illuminati conspiracy, then I suggest you throw away your computer, stop going to hospitals, taking modern medicine or receiving modern medical treatments, get the heck out of your house, throw away your cellphone, leave your car, and go back to living in a straw hut or cave and go foraging yourself for your own live chickens.
Cybele wrote:
Okay I guess we can agree on this part.
<quoted text>
No you don't, you pretend you do!
Sorry, but pretending is not necessary (archaeopteryx case in point). See I post stuff, you post stuff, I address yours, you don't address mine. All you have are questions about stuff you don't know, mostly from creationist websites, and there may even be the occasional thing you point to that science doesn't know yet. But then that means you don't either. And that's when you (quite bizarrely) declare victory. It's the way things go on these threads between the evil evilushinists and science deniers.
Cybele wrote:
Actually, I've read about the transitional fossils. I have come to my own conclusions but I won't say it just yet. I still have questions and I will post when ready.
Of course you have. But are your opinions worth anything?

Well, not until you become a scientist.
Cybele wrote:
So everything Einstein said was right? Are you sure about that? I'm not talking about the theory of relativity in particular. There are other things that he mentioned that are unlikely to be true.
You appear to be reading what you want into my posts. He probably got some things right, and others wrong. But I was specifically referring to relativity, which is still correct - at least to a point. Just in the same way Newton was still correct. His work still gets our spacecraft to most of the solar system. Einstein's idea was even more correct, more accurate. He can get our probes to Mercury. And quantum physics is even more accurate and can correctly predict the positions and motions of far off astronomical phenomena. The goal is a fully-fledged quantum theory of gravity, but we don't have that yet. This is where Bohart sticks his wizard of the gaps.
bohart

Newport, TN

#64893 Dec 12, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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)
And here's Dude! bringing up gravity to somehow bolster his puddle gooist belief.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#64894 Dec 12, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Russell, you are wrong again.
Mitochondrial Eve lived about 150,000+- years ago. She is the female who ALL of today's women descended from.
Y Chromosomal Adam lived about 50,000 to 60,000+- years ago and he is the ancestor of ALL males alive today.
It doesn't count when they are far apart like that. There was never a time when our ancient ancestors were just one couple. The DNA proves that.
Adam and Eve, as written in the Bible, NEVER existed. The Bible is completely wrong on this story, and it is now provable.
No you are wrong!

If you understand the science correctly....
And science will catch up

The difference in the bottlenecks is because on the Ark there was only ONE Y chromosome...Noah's

Whereas there were 3 (or 4, if Noah's wife had more children after the Flood) lineages of mitochondrial DNA...
And that is precisely what 'science' has discovered...three main lineages of mtDNA

“So Noah, with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark because of the waters of the flood.” Gen 7:7
“Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth… These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.” Gen 9:18–19

How many X chromosome lineages were on the Ark? That depends. If you count it all up, you get eight. If, by chance, Noah’s wife passed on the same X chromosome to each of her three sons (25% probability), then there were seven. If Noah had a daughter after the Flood (not expected, but possible), there could be as many as nine X chromosome lineages. Either way, this is a considerable amount of genetic material. And since X chromosomes recombine (in females), we are potentially looking at a huge amount of genetic diversity within the X chromosomes of the world.

Does this fit the evidence? Absolutely! It turns out that Y chromosomes are similar worldwide. According to the evolutionists, no “ancient”(i.e., highly mutated or highly divergent) Y chromosomes have been found.

This serves as a bit of a puzzle to the evolutionist, and they have had to resort to calling for a higher “reproductive variance” among men than women, high rates of “gene conversion” in the Y chromosome, or perhaps a “selective sweep” that wiped out the other male lines.

For the biblical model, it is a beautiful correlation and we can take it as is.

The evidence from mitochondrial DNA fits our model just as neatly as the Y chromosome data. As it turns out, there are three main mitochondrial DNA lineages found across the world. The evolutionists have labeled these lines “M”,“N”, and “R”.

It also turns out that M, N, and R differ by only a few mutations. This gives us some indication of the amount of mutation that occurred in the generations prior to the Flood.

Jobling, M.A., Tyler-Smith, C., The human Y chromosome: an evolutionary marker comes of age, Nature Reviews 4:598–612, 2003

Garrigan, D. and Hammer, M.F., Reconstructing human origins in the genomic era, Nature Reviews 7:669–680, 2006.
bohart

Newport, TN

#64895 Dec 12, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Are you OK. Do you need me to call and ambulance?
Ha,Ha, thats a good one , call an ambulance, Eddie Murphy needs writers.Call him

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
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 3 min Hoosier Hillbilly 207
Cinco de Mayo 6 min Hoosier Hillbilly 2
A-Z of people's names.. 15 min beatlesinafog 15
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 17 min beatlesinafog 8,415
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 24 min Princess Hey 8,136
Write sentences with the first letter following... 24 min beatlesinafog 75
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 24 min Lumatrix 4,883
Things that make life eaiser... 56 min Princess Hey 284
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr I Am No One_ 161,853
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr Grace Nerissa 40,293
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 3 hr Mr_FX 8,271
More from around the web