Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216634 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.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#71442 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You should really brush up on your bible passages if you expect anyone to take you seriously.
"Noah was commanded to take into the ark all the animals on land in whose nostrils was the breath of life (Genesis 6:17, 7:14-15, 22). There is no reason to believe that all the varieties of insects were on the ark because they breathe through their skin and do not have nostrils. They could have survived on floating matter or by burrowing in the mud. Some of the insects may have been on the ark in the fur of the animals or in nooks and crannies of the ark. The Bible does not teach that they had to be on board."
That goes for worms as well.
You need to brush up on your entomology, because most insects breath through a trachael system that starts on the surface of the body as openings called spriracles. The surface of the body of an arthropod is composed of a chitonous exoskeleton, that doesn't lend well to absorbing oxygen for repiration. The blood of the insect does not act as vertebrate blood does in transporting oxygen to the cells of the body. These tracheae carry oxygen to the cells.

So you believe that the many millions of species of insects survived by burrowing in the mud. Do you mean insects like the 120,000 known species of Lepidoptera? Or perhaps they all clung to floating debri, whilst being pummelled by insesant rain, only to emerge from the deluge in perfect shape to immediately start breeding and hopefully do so near their host plants. Perhaps while burrowing through the mud, the Monarch butterfly for instance, was able to dig its way to mildweed plants that were no doubt buried with it. In any event, while there are numerous insect species that do live in soil, those that do not would find it difficult to survive under such conditions not even mentioning the low oxygen, high water content and pressure of being buried in this soil covered by several thousand feet of water. Yes, I can see the complete logic and certitude of your hpostheses. This must surely be how it happened.

Lake Victoria in Africa is a young lake by geological standards, yet it contains or has contained (we have managed to kill off some species) some 500 species of cichlid fish. Now recent geological evaluation of the lake bed using coring methods has revealed the unexpected discovery that 15,000 years ago there was no lake and the area was a grassland. Genetic and molecular evaluation of these fish species reveal that they all developed from a single ancestor species that entered the lake during its early formation. These species are indigenous to Lake Vicoria and are found nowhere else. This evidence reveals an episode of one of the fastest instances of macroevolution so far recorded. Or perhaps God put them there with magic. Maybe the flood miraculously deposited 500 species freshwater fish in Lake Victoria and nowhere else on earth and they were instantly able to survive and reproduce. Perhaps they were all buried in the mud of the former grassland or arrived at the lake clinging to bushes floating on the water.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#71443 Jan 21, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does it matter what it's called? I know it's obvious you're skeptic about intelligent design. And that it goes against the theory of evolution because we supposedly evolved from simpler life forms. If the universe evolved from the simplest matter then what caused order and intelligence of the universe, nature, and in our species?
It really isn't so much a question of being skeptical of Intelligent Design, it isn't a tenable thesis. It is just religion in a lab coat. Every piece of evidence so far presented by ID in support of a designer has been shown to be flawed and wrong. The bottom line is that it isn't science.

I would argue that life developed on the edge of chaos. Beyond that I am not qualified to discuss intelligence as it pertains to the universe or nature. Unless you are expanding the definition of intelligence to mean more than it does, the universe and nature are not intelligent in the way that humans are. Ordered and following rules, but not intelligent in the sense of conceiving and carrying out complex thought and rending it to action. Having read extensively in science fiction, I have been introduced to a lot of ideas regarding the concept of what could be alive in a speculative sense. Such things as the ideas developed in the writings of Stanislaw Lem are interesting, but they describe living things that would still be less than pan-universal in their existence.
FREE SERVANT
#71444 Jan 21, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
very interesting read...there's a lot of ideas that I was not aware of presented....I read somewhere that there was deep mining operation in western US, that cut into solid rock and they found flint artifacts.
The rocks that house these artifacts were dated like a million years old or older...alot of things are swept under the rug if they don't support current mainstream scientific ideology.
NImrod developed formed morter techniques to build pyramid alters abroad and those blocks may have looked like stone.
FREE SERVANT
#71446 Jan 21, 2013
The theory that Noahs descendants built cities and towers throughout the world and the people of old were an advanced civilization explains a lot. Just sayin......

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#71447 Jan 21, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
The theory that Noahs descendants built cities and towers throughout the world and the people of old were an advanced civilization explains a lot. Just sayin......
Quite the opposite, because it would lead to one important question:

Why are we so much more advanced than they ever were?
FREE SERVANT
#71448 Jan 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the opposite, because it would lead to one important question:
Why are we so much more advanced than they ever were?
God stopped them. They may have had advanced knowledge that we do not yet know of and God caused it to be scattered and lost.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#71449 Jan 21, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>God stopped them. They may have had advanced knowledge that we do not yet know of and God caused it to be scattered and lost.
Lame excuse for something you know nothing about. They were more primitive than some of the older civilizations as well, in reality. You just want to make up something that "feels" good so you can pretend to know more, but in reality, you fail at archeology so much it's pathetic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#71450 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
The thing is you have zero proof of Macro evolution. As far a micro evolution no big deal there, so some genes get turn on or off. Big deal.
Not one fossil proves Macro evolution
Not once has it been observed.
Never in the history of the planet has macro evolution left behind a bit of proof that it ever happened.
I take it you just debunked the info I presented for you (again) yesterday then in a coherent rational manner using the scientific method then, yes? You know, that stuff that not one single fundie on this thread has been able to do for a year? And not one single fundie on the face of this planet has been able to do for 150?

What's that?

Oh, you completely ignored it and went on another "NO NO NO!" rant as usual?

Therefore Goddidit with magic?

Uhuh, thought so.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#71451 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You should really brush up on your bible passages if you expect anyone to take you seriously.
"Noah was commanded to take into the ark all the animals on land in whose nostrils was the breath of life (Genesis 6:17, 7:14-15, 22). There is no reason to believe that all the varieties of insects were on the ark
Um, Lango. You just said that evolution definitely didn't happen. Now you just said that evolution, on a MACRO scale, definitely DID happen.

If the Ark story is true then "MACRO"-evolution definitely DID happen. If no such evolution took place then the Ark story definitely did NOT happen.

You DO understand all the science behind all these concepts being discussed, right?

Or uh, are you just another fundie liar for Jesus claiming reality ain't real cuz an invisible magic dude didit?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#71453 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
The thing is you have zero proof of Macro evolution. As far a micro evolution no big deal there, so some genes get turn on or off. Big deal.
Not one fossil proves Macro evolution
Not once has it been observed.
Never in the history of the planet has macro evolution left behind a bit of proof that it ever happened.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Here it is for you again Langs. That's just a few billion facts that put together enequivocally demonstrate evolution. All you need is just ONE of any number of valid potential falsifications. Do let us know when you can come up with something better than "evilooshun iz rong cuz GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC!"

Take your time.

You will.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#71454 Jan 21, 2013
[QUOTE who="On page 3369, I"]
Creationists hate both atheists and Evolutionists, so they pretend that those are the exact same people.[/QUOTE]
marksman11 wrote:
You guys say GOD didn't do it,
See what I mean?
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#71456 Jan 21, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You think you're some sort of policeman?
Seriously?
I consider myself an advocate for order, not a volunteer to enforce anyone's perception of what is fair. I consider you someone who is trying to kill every shadow that moves. If I can remove your element so that others go on to discuss on topic, I've maintained the order I seek.

Stop parsing. Pay attention to the real debate. If you don't think my analogy is close enough to the Evolution/Creationism debate, feel free to walk away. For the most part, you have not presented logical information, just statistical claims and your private view as to what is "natural". I suggest your claims are invalid and defend my arguments. You call people names.

I call it a complete win, but you WILL go back to statistical claims and calling people names. Nothing can be more absolutely certain.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#71457 Jan 21, 2013
nemesis wrote:
<quoted text>We had many questions prior to our encounter. One question was answered....."We are NOT alone in the universe". Next question. Why do aliens insist on being like gray ghost and make humans fear them? The more we learn, the more we understand that with the universe having infinite earth-like planets the odds of an advanced civilization existing is fact, not fiction. Why they will not make direct and factual contact is a mystery. Science does not have a clue. All the number crunching in the universe will never answer that question. Again, we understand the "negative" response.......we know what happened was real.
Science has increased our understanding of probability. We know now that the likelihood of alien life is high, while the likelihood of space travel is not so high.

We can easily dismiss reports of alien visitors as improbable stories but as has always been the case, proving a negative is not logical or compulsory.

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#71458 Jan 21, 2013
Too slow wrote:
Bored much?
much

slow is key I think...
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#71459 Jan 21, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Great thing about science.
It's rue whether you believe in it or not.(Paraphrase from Neil DeGrasse Tyson)
A good scientist would see the difference between absolute proof, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and pure opinion though. Evolution is admittedly what you and I call reasonable doubt so we can easily say "prove that it didn't happen", which is proving a negative.

I prefer to suggest that the phrase "demonstrate natural examples that don't fit Evolutionary theory" is a better place to start. Scientists CAN make mistakes. We can find random mutations in the fossil record that represent random mutations without being the result of Evolution. It's best to avoid defending Evolution as absolute fact.

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#71460 Jan 21, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I consider myself an advocate for order, not a volunteer to enforce anyone's perception of what is fair. I consider you someone who is trying to kill every shadow that moves. If I can remove your element so that others go on to discuss on topic, I've maintained the order I seek.
Stop parsing. Pay attention to the real debate. If you don't think my analogy is close enough to the Evolution/Creationism debate, feel free to walk away. For the most part, you have not presented logical information, just statistical claims and your private view as to what is "natural". I suggest your claims are invalid and defend my arguments. You call people names.
I call it a complete win, but you WILL go back to statistical claims and calling people names. Nothing can be more absolutely certain.
Amongst people are persons of no great claim other than to be considered that a Person amongst people...

You have to admit that logical thought process comes much from personal means experience statistics are a lot of numbers to go by them you really would have to know the source they are coming from...

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#71461 Jan 21, 2013
In their book Refuting Evolution 2, Sarfati & Matthews portray their opponents as atheists. In Chapter 3 especially, they wax vitriolic against Evolutionists with their "materialistic bias, which rejects a common Designer a priori." In chapter 3 alone, they write that "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." "Particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent Designer." "Modern evolutionary theory is all about providing a plausible mechanism for explaining life's complexity without God." The authors must have had another spurt of adrenalin in chapter 10, when they referred to "Darwin and his God-hating successors."

Like Gish, S & M confuse abiogenesis with evolution, and hope that the reader will also. "Life came into being without an intelligent Creator."

I what we should equate Creationists with.
The Illuminati movement, perhaps?

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#71462 Jan 21, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has increased our understanding of probability. We know now that the likelihood of alien life is high, while the likelihood of space travel is not so high.
We can easily dismiss reports of alien visitors as improbable stories but as has always been the case, proving a negative is not logical or compulsory.
Probably isn't that like maybe...

So each and every Parent on the planet could be considered somewhat of a Scientist with great degree in that most Parents are great at saying maybe and the child after a while understands which sound to maybe means yes or no, so Science would have us believe that we are of people's function to understand ...

Diplomacy served thus far big shots as to be known as such? Diplomats and those that have em'...

I like reading your posts they make me think...

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#71463 Jan 21, 2013
Hey Alienware the students reap the benefits what else is there?

Woke up with some strange sense that to slow is alright it does not connect with having to grow in any way...

Time

What about it, it only really exists first because of shadow shadow moves and then the hands they created a face too where the hands can move about to see shadow eyes blind people would have to touch the face to with hands feel hands...

legs to move in time as to shadow along in light is darkness...

when time seems right is when one feels light even in darkness in motion as the hands move legs accordingly to each step one by one...

Idle to stand still the earth is still moving still? Psssss

Lips to move and to give time before people had it?

“you must not give faith”

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Leicester, UK

#71464 Jan 21, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
That which is self evident needs no proof.
That which is self evident sould be easy to prove so do it.

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
Two words only please! (Aug '08) 8 min Mr_FX 40,838
Start a sentence in alphabetical order.. 11 min Mr_FX 1,574
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 21 min Sam 67,105
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 31 min SweLL GirL 15,210
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 33 min SweLL GirL 5,317
Tell me a TRUTH (Dec '12) 35 min liam cul8r 1,187
GMGMike's Bar And Grill (Jan '10) 41 min liam cul8r 20,473
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 hr Lucy the First 10,569
All Christmas Carols/Songs and Quotes.. 1 hr Emerald 49
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Lucy the First 206,934
News Trump's bizarre claim that the Clinton email co... 3 hr freedom2016 984
More from around the web