Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216925 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

Macclesfield, UK

#64928 Dec 12, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
But yew might like this book--
3. Alexander Mebane's "Darwin's Creation Myth", available from:
The SourceBook Project
P.O. Box 107
Glen Arm, Md. 21057
And you might like 'Why Evolution is True' by Jerry Coyne.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#64929 Dec 12, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you insulting my intelligence? Because no scientist will be able to explain my experiences. No, really. Because their capacity for comprehension is limited by the confines of the scientific methods.
That doesn't invalidate science. The capacity for comprehension is not limited by the scientific method. It opens up new areas, stimulates new ideas and provides for greater comprehension. Lightning is not dueling gods, or witches don't weigh the same as a duck and are therefore made of wood and will burn, etc.

Sure, science has limits, but as a tool for discovery, we haven't found a better one yet.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#64930 Dec 12, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah. It doesn't take an atheist to be able to find cures for diseases, trouble shoot a computer or understand COBOL or UNIX, innovate technology, invent a machine, build cars, etc. Intelligence isn't synonymous to being an atheist like you. Why should I listen to someone of random existence?
Atheism? What does that have to do with anything? It's got JACK to do with science. No, even Christians are scientists and don't feel the need to reject reality for the sake of their religious beliefs. But you were the one who was claiming it was all a big scientific conspiracy because you don't have the ability to debunk evolution due to not knowing much about biology in particular or science in general. I just pointed out your hypocrisy of poohing science and accepting the fruits of its labour.
Cybele wrote:
Wow, you're such a whiner maybe you should refer to yourself as a WHINOSAURUS. lol
<quoted text>
Are you insulting my intelligence?
I can't insult something if it doesn't exist.(shrug)
Cybele wrote:
Because no scientist will be able to explain my experiences. No, really. Because their capacity for comprehension is limited by the confines of the scientific methods.
Yes, the scientific method is limited to objective evidence instead of subjective opinions. So while I'm sure that you believe you've had some amazing epiphany-giving experience of super special knowledge that let you "know" that "evilushun iz rong!", the rest of the world doesn't give a flying fig. And neither does reality.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#64931 Dec 12, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If this were correct and if there had been such a flood. Russel up something else for us.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#64932 Dec 12, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
What did the apes "evolve from"?
Darwin's INCOMPLETE theory is VERY passe now--as are the 2nd grade pictographs of it.
Science has moved WAY beyond, by leaps and bounds.
What did those "apes" evolve from?
YOU (emphasis) might want to catch up a little!!
The first systematic presentation of evolution was put forth by the French scientist Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1774-1829) in 1809. Lamarck described a mechanism by which he believed evolution could occur. This mechanism was known as "the inheritance of acquired characteristics."
Lamarck started his scientific career as a botanist, but in 1793 he became one of the founding professors of the Musee National d'Histoire Naturelle as an expert on invertebrates. His work on classifying worms, spiders, molluscs, and other boneless creatures was far ahead of his time.
Assume that there were salamanders living in some grasslands. Suppose, Lamarck argued, that these salamanders had a hard time walking because their short legs couldn't trample the tall grasses or reach the ground. Suppose that these salamanders began to slither on their bellies to move from place to place. Because they didn't use their legs, the leg muscles wasted away from disuse and the legs thus became small. Lamarck's theory said that the salamanders passed this acquired trait to their offspring. In time the salamander's legs were used so rarely that they disappeared. Thus, Lamarck argued, legless salamanders evolved from salamanders by inheriting the acquired characteristic of having no legs. Lamarck presented no experimental evidence or observation and his theory fell out of scientific favor. The next significant idea came from the British scientist Charles Darwin.
In 1837 Darwin began his first notebook on evolution.
So, As we see from some gathered FACTS-- Darwin's theory was NOT only NOT wholly original to him, but NOT very recent, at all.
Capish?
I'm sorry guy, but you have no idea of whats going on in science and whats true or not...goodbye
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#64933 Dec 12, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not relevant to my post. Claiming a theory is flawed by criticizing a completely different theory is not a very good way of doing things.
Well..okay since you insist...when I feel like it's all just bouncing off "setting rocks" (if ever there were rocks with that particular inherent feature, excluding of course, flat ones that can skip across water)...it degenerates the atmospheric conditions for any further conducive contemplation of the more serious natured type...and just makes anyone to go "duh-huh".

What was your post again?(while I await the fusion process of protiens and lipids to coagulate for further processing)
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#64934 Dec 12, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And you might like 'Why Evolution is True' by Jerry Coyne.
Is it freely available elctronically?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#64935 Dec 12, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. It does not care if life developed naturally or if it was magically poofed into being by an invisible magical wizard. All evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here. Good luck.
Or do you also reject the theory of gravity? That doesn't explain the origin of mass, but it still works.
Do you also reject the germ theory of disease? That doesn't explain the origin of germs, but it still works.
Likewise evolution.
Don't be an idiot

Why would anyone deny gravity?
Or the germ theory of disease?

As I have demonstrated before, ALL of science progresses very nicely entirely without evolutionary nonsense....except for evolutionary biology

Expression of genetically derived phenotypic variation in species is NOT EVOLUTION

Mutations rates DO NOT fit even evolutionary deep time

Our genomes reveal youthfulness....since we ARE HERE! Mutation rates would demand humans should have become extinct....a very long time ago

Face facts

It's quite simple really
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#64936 Dec 12, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Another reason why Noah didn't stand a chance.
http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/2007/noah-ra...
Do you have any intelligent Id for that,(or do you just let any ol' thang chomp)
Russell sux

Uniontown, PA

#64937 Dec 12, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be an idiot
Why would anyone deny gravity?
Or the germ theory of disease?
As I have demonstrated before, ALL of science progresses very nicely entirely without evolutionary nonsense....except for evolutionary biology
Expression of genetically derived phenotypic variation in species is NOT EVOLUTION
Mutations rates DO NOT fit even evolutionary deep time
Our genomes reveal youthfulness....since we ARE HERE! Mutation rates would demand humans should have become extinct....a very long time ago
Face facts
It's quite simple really
Actually, it is YOU that is quite simple - REALLY!
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#64938 Dec 12, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing. It's when you pretend it's relevant to science there becomes a problem.
Yeah the Romans were mean to early Christians. Yeah there was a guy called Herod.
No there were no talking donkeys and lizards. No there was no global flood.
No the Earth is not a flat square circle at the center of a geocentric universe.
Goddidit with magic? Well maybe, but can't be scientifically substantiated. We COULD all be trapped in the Matrix.
About that flood thing---you're appending that rather literally, aren't you?

(wonder what the earliest inhabitants of Staten Island, as an island, would've thought after seeing it a few weeks ago....)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#64939 Dec 12, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be an idiot
Why would anyone deny gravity?
Or the germ theory of disease?
Your criticism was that evolution need explain life's origin but you claim those theories do NO have to explain their respective origins.

Your hypocrisy is noted.
Russell wrote:
As I have demonstrated before, ALL of science progresses very nicely entirely without evolutionary nonsense....except for evolutionary biology
Expression of genetically derived phenotypic variation in species is NOT EVOLUTION
Mutations rates DO NOT fit even evolutionary deep time
Our genomes reveal youthfulness....since we ARE HERE! Mutation rates would demand humans should have become extinct....a very long time ago
Face facts
It's quite simple really
You've demonstrated nothing. Myself and others have demonstrated otherwise. Oh, and you just contradicted yourself again.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#64940 Dec 12, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it freely available elctronically?
Probably not.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#64941 Dec 12, 2012
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. That many mutations in such a short amount of time is absurd, and is commonly known as Haldane’s Dilemma.
Even a relatively small population would have many tens of thousands of mutations per generation. Let's call that "Maz's Dilema".
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#64942 Dec 12, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not relevant to my post. Claiming a theory is flawed by criticizing a completely different theory is not a very good way of doing things.
and I saw you sneak mention of QP into one of your posts!
IsGuythatGuy

London, KY

#64943 Dec 12, 2012
Russell sux wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it is YOU that is quite simple - REALLY!
russell "guy" or is guy actually another "guy"? Is that guy a guy that's into Science, or is guy the type of guy that's one of those there "creo" guys, or could guy dualy be evo and creo, which many guys named guy could be, in the really big world of guys lol.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#64944 Dec 12, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably not.
bah-figures-humbug.

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#64945 Dec 12, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing. It's when you pretend it's relevant to science there becomes a problem.
Yeah the Romans were mean to early Christians. Yeah there was a guy called Herod.
No there were no talking donkeys and lizards. No there was no global flood.
No the Earth is not a flat square circle at the center of a geocentric universe.
Goddidit with magic? Well maybe, but can't be scientifically substantiated. We COULD all be trapped in the Matrix.
Hark Angels..........we have ignorance abounding.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#64946 Dec 12, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for NOT sounding like a "know it all", especially about subject matter of OPINION rather than absolute "fact".. that of which most of us weren't even around to have any sort of personal interaction with to even begin to ascertain anything with such reckless, pompous nothing but "arrogance of certainty" of nothing but ones OWN opinion on a subject.
In other words, rational, sane, logical and therefore, relate-able.
Pleasure reading it.
:-)
Thanks, I try not to be the authoritarian. That would defeat my purpose on this forum.

However, Darwin and Einstein do have a cult status. Whereas Darwin abruptly dismisses religious importance, Einstein kind of marketed it in an ambiguous way. It's probably a working class thing to revere them in that fashion but as long as it's a postmortem thing, I suppose that it's OK. Kind of like they way they commemorate people on postage stamps!

I think it's Charles Idemi who has brought up Einstein the most. For the most part, the Evolution crowd considers Einstein irrelevant to the debate. With that in mind, I think they've been keeping the context real, not doing the cult thing. This thread has been going on long enough that you may not have seen that context.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#64947 Dec 12, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism? What does that have to do with anything? It's got JACK to do with science. No, even Christians are scientists and don't feel the need to reject reality for the sake of their religious beliefs. But you were the one who was claiming it was all a big scientific conspiracy because you don't have the ability to debunk evolution due to not knowing much about biology in particular or science in general. I just pointed out your hypocrisy of poohing science and accepting the fruits of its labour.
And what are you trying to say? That those who benefit from all disciplines of Science must accept the theory of evolution and reject their beliefs? Wow you guys are worse than a dictator.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the scientific method is limited to objective evidence instead of subjective opinions. So while I'm sure that you believe you've had some amazing epiphany-giving experience of super special knowledge that let you "know" that "evilushun iz rong!",
I never said evolution is wrong. I keep saying this over and over that it's a theory not a fact. Unless genetics can provide evidence. It's really hard to determine from a non-scientist point of view the authenticity of a fossil evidence.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
the rest of the world doesn't give a flying fig. And neither does reality.
And I don't care who gives a crap about my experience. They or you can kiss my ass and piss off!

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
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 3 min Old Sam 5,876
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 6 min Old Sam 16,879
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 8 min Old Sam 32,279
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 8 min SUG here 35,668
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 8 min beatlesinthebog 22,237
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 9 min Old Sam 12,814
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 10 min Old Sam 83,179
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 32 min Gunthram 207,209
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 49 min 8541 MARINE 67,268
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr Majority should rule 2,480
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 hr beatlesinthebog 10,652
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 5 hr Lelouch0 1,525
More from around the web