Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 204794 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.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#65227 Dec 14, 2012
ItsObvious wrote:
Prove this wrong. An advanced species known as humans developed technology to leave their own planet and go to life sustaining planets in other solar systems. They went to planets most like their own and to their surprise, found primitive ape like creatures on that planet. They decided to use these apes to help retrieve resources from this planet for their own agenda, as well as wage war against other human colonies settling on the same planet(explaining gods with fire breathing birds, powers capable of mass destruction, wars between "angels" in theology). Using technology much like invitro fertilization, they combined their own DNA with these apes to give them enough intelligence to take orders and help but not enough to fully comprehend existence. Through genetic cloning(genetic cloning explaining why humans have over 4000 genetic disorders while all other animals on earth have less than 500, except dolly the cloned sheep who was predisposed to an abnormally high number of genetic disorders), more and more of these slaves were created but they unexpectedly "evolved and suddenly had more awareness. Undoubtedly better hybrids could be produced by further hybridizing with this higher ape species(explaining the suddenly rapid development in human evolution towards the modern age I.e. the jump from Neanderthal cave dwellers inexplicably forming mass societies, building pyramids across the globe etc.) producing even higher intelligent humanoids. Then these humans left the planets after losing the wars or getting all they needed from the planet, promising their creations a return, possibly to check up on their progress and see how their "experiment" has gone. Besides how hard it is to accept this theory and however implausible this is, what if it happened here on earth already? Barring how absolutely absurd it sounds, the only way to disprove this type of theory would be for extraterrestrials to come down and literally say we had no part in it. Just for the crazy factor I'm gonna throw in the possibility that the first ape hybrids resembled something of a Sasquatch or a yeti and when new hybrids were made, these obsoletes were set free or banished explaining the possible(however unlikely) existence of yetis and sasquatches that are reported being seen. They hide from us because we so closely resemble the original "alien ancestors" that first enslaved them and waged war with them. Trust me it sounds crazy to me too but it explains any(if any exists) arguments against the speed and practicality of a human brain developing as it did(making birth extremely dangerous and a lot harder anatomically, not to mention the absolute lack of necessity of so much brain capacity for such primitive humanoids. Before you dismiss this remember that Darwinism states that a species will only evolve or adapt to the extent in which is necessary to survive. Our ancestors seem to make an unnecessary jump to a huge brain capacity at a large risk to the birthing process due to the size of the infants head) and also explains all of these religious stories or more accurately, flawed resellings of people who saw what they could not explain. Also if this is just too out there for people on this forum I can discuss how the same brain in primitive humanoids that we have today still could have evolved in the short time period to modern man and how we are still evolving. Sorry for the novel lol ;)
....Wow.

...I mean....what an imagination.

I'd be amused -- I mean "interested" to hear your evidence for the above.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#65228 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Additional reply to Subby..
Listen, here stop misquoting me. I have not said anything about comparisons other than evos ignorantly look to similarity and ignore differences.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/18...
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/fra...
I said ervs will prove to be FUNCTIONAL and that is the way it is going as opposed to evos that initially claimed they were functionless remnants.
Will you answer my question as to how you know what is a 'new' erv that has recently inserted in mankind after the split or 'old' meaning ancestral? Do you know or do you just believe these jokers for the heck of it?
These 'old' ervs are scrambled. In fact they bear no homologue in any known retrovirus here today. All the gobble is based on what is speculated. It is algorithmic straw grabbing. It is all gibberish. Do you get that?
The 'new/recent' ervs actually have some similarity to current retrovirus in that there are tiny remnants of sequence that APPEAR to look a little like these retrovirus. They are 'distantly related' meaning the tiny left over remnant they found are NOT the 'same' as any current retrovirus. So here again is an extrapolation based on an existing priori of common decent.
The fact that we have many wafflers and ridiculers here like Subby and Dan like to gobble on but cannot refute a word I said about your gibberish.

I predict that evos will babble on and evade with every aside. Evidence...Subbies short and sweet and incomplete response based on evasion.

Do please tell all us creos just how all the gibberish around 'old' scrambled ervs that are linked to mythical extinct retrovirus has any basis in reality as opposed to mythical speculation?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65229 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Additional reply to Subby..
Listen, here stop misquoting me.
Right. So it's okay for YOU to misquote evolutionary biologists and their research but not okay for someone to do it to you.

Hypocrisy thy name is Maz the fundie.
MazHere wrote:
I have not said anything about comparisons other than evos ignorantly look to similarity and ignore differences.
We know there are differences, which is why we are not using those differences as evidence for evolution. For example we are not using non-orthologous ERV's as evidence for common ancestry, we are only using orthologous ones.
MazHere wrote:
I said ervs will prove to be FUNCTIONAL and that is the way it is going as opposed to evos that initially claimed they were functionless remnants.
We actually claimed them to be FUNCTIONAL retroviruses. And that any addition of genetic material CAN and DOES eventually lead to new function if it does not completely incapacitate the organism.
MazHere wrote:
Will you answer my question as to how you know what is a 'new' erv that has recently inserted in mankind after the split or 'old' meaning ancestral? Do you know or do you just believe these jokers for the heck of it?
Apparently YOU believe them when quoting cherry-picked parts of their papers.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
These 'old' ervs are scrambled.
Gee, YA THINK?!? The older they are, the more genetic drift they will demonstrate.

AS PREDICTED by evolution.

Sub even told you this a few days ago.

Duh.
MazHere wrote:
In fact they bear no homologue in any known retrovirus here today. All the gobble is based on what is speculated. It is algorithmic straw grabbing. It is all gibberish. Do you get that?
Yes, we get it - you deny science in favour of magic.
MazHere wrote:
The 'new/recent' ervs actually have some similarity to current retrovirus in that there are tiny remnants of sequence that APPEAR to look a little like these retrovirus.
So why do these "functional" whateveryouwannacallits just so happen to look like retroviruses?

That and all those other questions I asked you still have no answer for.

So much for creationism being able to EXPLAIN anything.
MazHere wrote:
They are 'distantly related' meaning the tiny left over remnant they found are NOT the 'same' as any current retrovirus. So here again is an extrapolation based on an existing priori of common decent.
So you're saying the viruses from back then are not the same as we have today?

People get flu jabs every year.

So why the heck is this supposed to be surprising?

.

What's the "scientific theory" of creationism, Maz?

(sound of crickets chirping)
ItsObvious

Moline, IL

#65230 Dec 14, 2012
Chimps will be speaking in the next century and creationists will see first hand. However I believe this study greatly exaggerates the part about them evolving faster(physiologically I don't doubt they are however I doubt the human study involved the evolution in human intelligence and behavior due to cultural pressures which would raise our evolution rates)

http://www.avantnews.com/news/25668-the-race-...

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#65231 Dec 14, 2012
lisawow wrote:
<quoted text>So it's not about science then, it's just about you wanting to to hang on to your big, fluffy, christian security blanket??
Did I say anything about Christianity? I don't belong to any religious faction but at least I learned and understand the religion. I see you don't know much about the hidden esoteric wisdom of the bible.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65232 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you that dense? If I don't accept science, I wouldn't have studied pharmacology in the first place. Have you been taking narcotics?
What your problem is, you just want to repeat what atheist evilutionists choirs are saying and don't want to accept other facts that is shown to you.
I'm sorry, you have shown facts?

When?

And I ask again, what does atheism have to do with anything? It's certainly got nothing to do with science.

“happy to be horny”

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#65233 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
what kind of English don't you understand?
met·a·phor
[ métt&#601; fàwr ]
implicit comparison: the use to describe somebody or something of a word or phrase that is not meant literally but by means of a vivid comparison expresses something about him, her, or it, e.g. saying that somebody is a snake
figurative language: all language that involves figures of speech or symbolism and does not literally represent real things
symbol: one thing used or considered to represent another
Well I'd always half guessed that the ten commandments must have been mere metaphors given the behaviour of most christians, but now I'll take that one step further and assume that Jesus is just a metaphor for evolution, thanks for the heads up, oh and we don't teach metaphors in science classes so out with that silly book asap!!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65234 Dec 14, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
Darwin Buster Four: Darwinians have no explanation for why humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes. Darwinians claim that "chromosome fusion" of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs. But there is not one example of "chromosome fusion" in mammals. Darwinians claim that 1 in 1000 human babies have a "fused chromosome" but this is an out and out lie. They are actually referring to Robertsonian Translocations, which are "translocations" and not fused chromosomes and does not result in a change in the chromosome number. Besides, scientifically derived facts refute "chromosome fusion" can occur in apes or humans.
Oh, so basically when science has evidence they lie, and when creationists say they have evidence they're telling the truth?

Can you say Projection?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65235 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh it's not, so what is it about if not about random mutations?
There are numerous other mechanisms, one of which for instance is natural selection. Selection is NOT random.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65236 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are just downright lying! You can't be any more wrong!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

Point to the numbers.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65237 Dec 14, 2012
ItsObvious wrote:
Prove this wrong. An advanced species known as humans developed technology to leave their own planet and go to life sustaining planets in other solar systems.
http://www.nasa.gov/

Humans have only reached the moon.
ItsObvious

Moline, IL

#65238 Dec 14, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
....Wow.
...I mean....what an imagination.
I'd be amused -- I mean "interested" to hear your evidence for the above.
I have little evidence except for the inexplicable loss of hair and complete abandonment of the cave dwelling lifestyle for an almost instantaneous shift towards worshipping gods with chariots that blew fire as they flew across the sky, possessed powers which could eliminate populations and cause sickness that made people's hair fallout and lose their fingernails(radiation poisoning) and countless other depictions of "gods form above" not to mention countless ancient "primitive" civilizations who had advanced knowledge of stars, orbits, and planets that we could not find without telescopes. It's not the evidence that proves this theory it's the lack of evidence proving man had the technology to do this alone, for if they knew of these planets, they were far greatly advanced then we give them credit for or someone else(aliens) told them and guided their existence which they retold the best they could using their understanding if the world to describe the far superior technology. I don't fully accept this theory but it would be a great(possibly the only) explanation for all of the theologies stories through history. Haha most of it is absurd but some of it is compelling. Some maps with perfectly charted continents(including Antarcticas actual coastline without ice which we could not map until the 60's with penetrating radar satellites) found from the 15th century. You can believe what ya want I'm just throwing out theories here man I am just as clueless as the rest of us on the journey to understand our origins and purpose.:)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65239 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
Today, there are numerous hypotheses about how, why, when, and where language might first have emerged.[2] It might seem that there is hardly more agreement today than there was a hundred years ago, when Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provoked a rash of armchair speculations on the topic.
Since the early 1990s, however, a growing number of professional linguists, archaeologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and others have attempted to address with new methods what they are beginning to consider "the hardest problem in science".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_langua...
And Dude, you think you have the answers? LOL!
Nope. Do you? Nope. So you're laughing at me for not answering something you can't either? Besides, it's hardly a problem evolution is dependant on. What's next? Evolution can't explain the Big Bang?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#65240 Dec 14, 2012
lisawow wrote:
<quoted text>Well I'd always half guessed that the ten commandments must have been mere metaphors given the behaviour of most christians, but now I'll take that one step further and assume that Jesus is just a metaphor for evolution, thanks for the heads up, oh and we don't teach metaphors in science classes so out with that silly book asap!!
I don't care what kind of English you want to read. If you prefer the scientific, that's your choice. But I guess you flunked out of American Lit because you took it literally?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65241 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Sort and sweet means you want to evade and are not prepared to defend ervs against my claim that your algorithmic magic is all gibberish.
What part of this are you totally ignoring?
Your claims that ERV markers were designed.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
"Researchers could not isolate a functioning, infectious HERV-K virus from human samples to study its possible function, though.
For each position in their final sequence they assigned the nucleotide base that was most common among the 30 originals at that position, according to a paper published online October 31 in Genome Research".
It is a frudulent misrepresentation, indeed, and there is no denying it.
You have a SERIOUS case of projection thar bub.

That's why you STILL haven't answered my ten questions yet. We have beaten this subject to death and you even inadvertently helped destroy your own position.

Again.
MazHere wrote:
I see you have zilch to say about your 'old' and 'new/recent' ervs.
Except that it was explained a couple of days ago.
MazHere wrote:
That my man, is the end of this topic you chose on ervs. If one cannot speak to a topic they should shut up or avoid it as you are now doing, or at least not be so stupid as to choose it.
If you refuse to defend the reasoning behind presumed ancient ervs then you loose by default, as this is the entire basis of the ERV myth.
We *have* defended it. Successfully. You lost. You were talking something about a warm up?

When you gonna start?(shrug)

Keep skipping, skippy.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65242 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that we have many wafflers and ridiculers here like Subby and Dan like to gobble on but cannot refute a word I said about your gibberish.
I predict that evos will babble on and evade with every aside. Evidence...Subbies short and sweet and incomplete response based on evasion.
Do please tell all us creos just how all the gibberish around 'old' scrambled ervs that are linked to mythical extinct retrovirus has any basis in reality as opposed to mythical speculation?
Already addressed.

Keep skipping, skippy.
ItsObvious

Moline, IL

#65243 Dec 14, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.nasa.gov/
Humans have only reached the moon.
Lol I used us as an example in the far future. For all intents and purposes I meant a different advanced species came to earth, did this and created us. Sorry for the confusion.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65244 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I say anything about Christianity? I don't belong to any religious faction but at least I learned and understand the religion. I see you don't know much about the hidden esoteric wisdom of the bible.
Wipe out all infidels? Or the bit about talking lizards and donkeys?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65245 Dec 14, 2012
ItsObvious wrote:
<quoted text>
I have little evidence except for the inexplicable loss of hair and complete abandonment of the cave dwelling lifestyle for an almost instantaneous shift towards worshipping gods with chariots that blew fire as they flew across the sky, possessed powers which could eliminate populations and cause sickness that made people's hair fallout and lose their fingernails(radiation poisoning) and countless other depictions of "gods form above" not to mention countless ancient "primitive" civilizations who had advanced knowledge of stars, orbits, and planets that we could not find without telescopes. It's not the evidence that proves this theory it's the lack of evidence proving man had the technology to do this alone, for if they knew of these planets, they were far greatly advanced then we give them credit for or someone else(aliens) told them and guided their existence which they retold the best they could using their understanding if the world to describe the far superior technology. I don't fully accept this theory but it would be a great(possibly the only) explanation for all of the theologies stories through history. Haha most of it is absurd but some of it is compelling. Some maps with perfectly charted continents(including Antarcticas actual coastline without ice which we could not map until the 60's with penetrating radar satellites) found from the 15th century. You can believe what ya want I'm just throwing out theories here man I am just as clueless as the rest of us on the journey to understand our origins and purpose.:)
It's an over-exaggerated hypothesis with zero evidence.

Makes good sci-fi though.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65246 Dec 14, 2012
ItsObvious wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol I used us as an example in the far future. For all intents and purposes I meant a different advanced species came to earth, did this and created us. Sorry for the confusion.
Ah, my mistake. Sorry.

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 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 5 min tiger_-_dad 59,841
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 9 min Heil Hitlary 19,989
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 12 min grace f a l l e n 8,306
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 15 min Bezeer 19,731
Any Word ! (Mar '11) 17 min Calisportsgirl 5,136
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 23 min Northbound 197,311
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 36 min SweLL GirL 8,318
Make up your wildest Headline. (Aug '08) 50 min Sparky 606
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 51 min _Susan_ 8,816
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr A TROLL NAMED SLACK 59,705
More from around the web