Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173989 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.

TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, 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

Franklin, PA

#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!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#64948 Dec 12, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>

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.
What's all this about Archeopteryx being a fake?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#64949 Dec 12, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Old world monkeys IIRC. You've never looked at the biological classification system, have you?
And all the transitional fossils are ...where????
<quoted text>
The Dude wrote:
No it wasn't. Darwin's contribution was proposing the mechanism of natural selection. He built his work of earlier people, just as all scientists do. It was Linnaeus for example who came up with our biological classification system, which the basic idea is still in use today. And he was by all accounts a creationist. It was him who pointed out that humans were apes. Ironically this creationist helped lay down the basis of evolution.
Not at all

Your perspective is all wrong, Bud

Natural selection is NOT EVOLUTION...
The evolutionary paradigm DEMANDS species that are lower in the "evolutionary tree of life" to have changed gradually into the species depicted higher up in the "evolutionary tree of life" over millions of years
Thus, microbes to man, pelicans to people, goo to you....

This has been scientifically unobservable, unrepeatable and untestable

NOT EVEN IN THE MILLIONS OF GENETIC MANIPULATIONS of poor old Drosophia melagaster

Natural selection was described first by a number of others, including a Christian, Edward Blyth

"Edward Blyth (1810–1873) was the man whose ideas probably influenced Darwin most. An English chemist and zoologist, Blyth wrote three major articles on natural selection that were published in The Magazine of Natural History from 1835 to 1837."

"Darwin was well aware of these. Not only was this one of the leading zoological journals of that time, in which his friends Henslow, Jenyns and Lyell had all published articles, but also it seems that the University of Cambridge, England, has Darwin’s own copies of the issues containing the Blyth articles, with Charles’s handwritten notes in the margins!"

So the next time you are wandering around aimlessly at Cambridge, duck in and have a look at the Blyth articles...

Also, new evidence has emerged that Scottish geologist, Dr James Hutton (1726–1797), conceived a theory of selection as early as 1794.

(Hutton is best known as the man who proposed that the earth was ‘immeasurably’ old, not thousands of years, because he rejected the Flood of the Bible and so erroneously assumed that there were no major catastrophes in the earth’s early history. WRONG!)

William Wells (1757–1817) was a Scottish-American doctor who, in 1813 (and published posthumously in 1818), described a concept like natural selection. He said that in central Africa some inhabitants ‘would be better fitted than the others to bear the diseases of the country. This race would consequently multiply, while the others would decrease.’ He went on to say that ‘the color of this vigorous race … would be dark’ and that ‘as the darkest would be the best fitted for the climate, this would at length become the most prevalent, if not the only race, in the particular country in which it had originated’.

Patrick Matthew (1790–1874) was a Scottish fruit-grower who, in 1831, published a book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, in the appendix of which he briefly mentioned natural selection and evolutionary change. Matthew publicly claimed that he had anticipated Charles Darwin, and even described himself on the title pages of his books as ‘Discoverer of the Principle of Natural Selection’.

Even Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus, a humanist preempted Charles on the subject of evolution by some 65 years with his book Zoonomia (1794), and that Charles used almost every topic discussed and example given in this work in his own On the Origin of Species, published in 1859

A systematic classification system of the natural order of life does not pre-suppose evolution

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64950 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!
bohart, there have been thousands of successful experiments. The very first one was successful. Their goal was to show that amino acids could form under natural conditions and they found that to be so. Experiments have gotten more specific and more detailed as time goes on and the vast majority have been successful.

You are the sort to declare powered flight to be impossible since the very first rubber band powered glider that the Wright Brothers built was not powerful enough to carry a man.

Get a clue. Stop lying. Learn something.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#64951 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.
"There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.”
—Kerkut, G.A.(1927–2004), Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960 (available online in the Public Domain at ia600409.us.archive.org/23/items/implications... ).

Nothing satisfactorily takes its place even now....that is naturalistic

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64952 Dec 12, 2012
Russell, now you are lying by making an obvious omission. You have been corrected on this before so once again you are either a complete idiot or a liar. Your choice.

Natural selection is only half of what drives evolution. It is Natural Selection and Random Variation that together drive evolution. The reason that Darwin is honored so much is that he was the first to put the two together.

And I knew you were a fool, but to believe in Noah's Ark is inexcusable. The Tooth Fairy is just as likely.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#64953 Dec 12, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
What's all this about Archeopteryx being a fake?
Is the flying fish real?
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64954 Dec 12, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I have no problem with respecting authority, or intelligence, as long as it's justifiable, which generally is easily discerned as to which posts merit the respect and which posts merit none... mostly due to their blatant disrespect of others!
No, I haven't popped on this particular thread, unless it's a resurrection of a very similar, long running one, debating the referencing of anything having to do with the Bible, in elective literature classes. A LOT of some of the same petty, mired inside the narrow box type of griping and whining, and condescending attitudes towards those who may indeed hold spiritual beliefs, beyond the more scientific realms. I personally find that small mindedness hard to accept, as respecting others differences in opinions, beliefs, etc. really isn't that significantly difficult to accomplish, for what I would opine as being the majority of the "norm" anyway.
But, the evolutionary/creation debate in it's most simplistic forms, will usually result in that type of redundent rhetoric I suppose.
I think my preference for such extends beyond those types of readings, and I do enjoy (rather than resent) ones that sometimes present interesting tidbits of information. Genetics is an interesting subject, full Of MANY conceptual discoveries, each pone fascinating in it's own "strand" per say.

As for Charles, he may just know a good quotation when he sees one, as I myself, have enjoyed reading many passages from the Bible as well, finding nothing "horribly wrong" with such at all! I think there's lots of people with the ability to clearly separate the literature of the Bible, from the scientific meanderings of the natural world and those who study it. It's the ones that cannot seem to differentiate between the two, for the respective qualities they both offer, that I find a bit "off".
But then, I think the process of making postage stamps, can be quite an intricate procedural task at times as well :-)
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64955 Dec 12, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Stuff like this however--IS actually "interesting"!!

The two genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 were recently identified as major determinants of pigmentation in humans and in other vertebrates. The allele p.A111T in the former gene and the allele p.L374F in the latter gene are both nearly fixed in light-skinned Europeans, and can therefore be considered ancestry informative marker (AIMs).

(oops-- forgot the site cite!!)
go rilla

United States

#64956 Dec 12, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And as already been pointed out, evolution makes no theological claims. Since we have pointed this out to you almost every time you've popped up here, the only possible conclusion can be that you're just another liar for Jesus.
<quoted text>
And yet amazingly, the ONLY people who are aware of this are "good Christians", since the scientific community is blissfully unaware of it.
So what "scientific alternative" do you propose? That's it - Goddidit with magic!
This is why no-one takes you seriously.
Where are all the intermediate species between not only man and ape but everything else. evolution lacks evidence period.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#64957 Dec 12, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
bohart, there have been thousands of successful experiments. The very first one was successful. Their goal was to show that amino acids could form under natural conditions and they found that to be so. Experiments have gotten more specific and more detailed as time goes on and the vast majority have been successful.
Not only that, but ten years ago, they found amino acids in deep space.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2558-am...

Hmmmmmm.....

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#64958 Dec 12, 2012
go rilla wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are all the intermediate species between not only man and ape but everything else. evolution lacks evidence period.
Your lack of education on the subject does not invalidate the presence of the evidence for evolution.

Get used to disappointment.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64959 Dec 12, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only that, but ten years ago, they found amino acids in deep space.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2558-am...
Hmmmmmm.....
Yep. Space or Earth, getting a source of amino acids is not all that difficult.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64960 Dec 12, 2012
go rilla wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are all the intermediate species between not only man and ape but everything else. evolution lacks evidence period.
You could not be more wrong. But then you do not know what evidence is in the first place.

There is undeniable literally mountains of scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution. There is no scientific evidence that supports creationism. That is a fact that anyone who understands evidence cannot deny.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#64961 Dec 12, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
bohart, there have been thousands of successful experiments. The very first one was successful. Their goal was to show that amino acids could form under natural conditions and they found that to be so. Experiments have gotten more specific and more detailed as time goes on and the vast majority have been successful.
You are the sort to declare powered flight to be impossible since the very first rubber band powered glider that the Wright Brothers built was not powerful enough to carry a man.
Get a clue. Stop lying. Learn something.
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
bohart, there have been thousands of successful experiments. The very first one was successful. Their goal was to show that amino acids could form under natural conditions and they found that to be so. Experiments have gotten more specific and more detailed as time goes on and the vast majority have been successful.
You are the sort to declare powered flight to be impossible since the very first rubber band powered glider that the Wright Brothers built was not powerful enough to carry a man.
Get a clue. Stop lying. Learn something.
You, SubDud are the only PROVEN liar here!

Even Dawkins admits that the Miller experiment led to a dead end..

Got a trillion years?

Firstly, primordial soup experiments are run with pure materials under carefully controlled conditions, with purification steps of the desired products after every step, adjusted pH , temp etc, to maximum advantage, UV light applied at the right time to destroy the biologically problematic side products without damaging the desired material….

In other words HEAPS of investigator interference….

Secondly, enzyme expert Wolfenden showed in 1998 that a reaction absolutely essential in creating the building blocks of DNA and RNA would take 78 million years in water, but was speeded up 10 to the power 18 times by an enzyme:

This is orotidine 5-prime-monophostate decarboxtlase, responsible for de novo synthesis of uridine 5-prime-phosphate, an essential precursor of RNA and DNA, by carboxylating orotidine 5 prime-monophosphate (OMP) as everyone now knows.

In 2003 Wolfenden found another enzyme that exceeded even this VAST rate enhancement. A PHOSPHOTASE, which catalyses the hydrolysis of phosphate bonds, magnified the reaction rate by a thousand times more than the previous enzyme-&#61664; 10 to the power of 21 times.

Phosphotase allows reactions vital for cell signalling and regulation to take place in a hundredth of a second

WITHOUT PHOSPHATASE THESE ESSENTIAL REACTIONS WOULD TAKE a trillion years

That is a hundred times even the supposed evolutionary age of the Universe.


Cited in Lang L H, Without enzyme catalyst slowest known biological reaction takes 1 trillion years, Biocompare Life Science News, news.biocompare.com , 2003
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#64963 Dec 12, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Russell, now you are lying by making an obvious omission. You have been corrected on this before so once again you are either a complete idiot or a liar. Your choice.
Natural selection is only half of what drives evolution. It is Natural Selection and Random Variation that together drive evolution. The reason that Darwin is honored so much is that he was the first to put the two together.
And I knew you were a fool, but to believe in Noah's Ark is inexcusable. The Tooth Fairy is just as likely.
Expression of genetic variation via assortment of alleles IS NOT EVOLUTION

How do you classify the hyper-variable portions of antibodies?
Is that evolution right before our eyes?

Stick to your claim that you DONT KNOW and stop your idiocy

You who can NEVER accept when he is wrong...and who is continually wrong

AND furthermore-->
Without catalysts there would be no life at all

Natural selection only works if there is life

Proteins DO NOT SELF REPLICATE
AND prions do not count
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#64964 Dec 12, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You could not be more wrong. But then you do not know what evidence is in the first place.
There is undeniable literally mountains of scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution. There is no scientific evidence that supports creationism. That is a fact that anyone who understands evidence cannot deny.
Mountains of improbability....
You are a desperate dolt

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
Poll Caution: Ferrets are VERY sensitive! DO NOT______ 3 min Samorrhoid 4
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 5 min F_R_E_D 43,996
Poll Would you live in a boarding house? 5 min Samorrhoid 6
Add a Word, Drop a Panty game 8 min Knock off purse s... 764
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 9 min gracefallen 29,767
ask BLOODY__FATALITY 10 min greymouser 18
Word Association. (Nov '10) 11 min Knock off purse s... 18,091
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 17 min Knock off purse s... 13,405
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 36 min SLY WEST 169,631
name my cat 40 min Crazy Jae 55
More from around the web