Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 164217 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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#73548 Feb 2, 2013
And don't forget to read up on entanglement.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#73549 Feb 2, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
That would imply "self evident."
You said before that "nothing was self evident."
and if it's not self evident it would be and assumption, would it not?
No it would be a fallacy to go for that implication.
And you are adding to it.
But the mistake is yours.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#73550 Feb 2, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
That would imply "self evident."
You said before that "nothing was self evident."
and if it's not self evident it would be and assumption, would it not?
You like reading more into everything.

It's called the simplest explanation, and thus it is the default one. Occam's Razor is the more proper name of that. It is not an assumption to begin with the simplest explanation, that's just called sanity and logic.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#73552 Feb 2, 2013
Snark Hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually God exists in a few cells in the right hemisphere of the brain...Temporal area....God has been recreated in the lab with electro-magnetic stimulation as well as out of body experiences.
maybe others are better judges since i'm unfamiliar with your writing style.
but you could have added: irony :P
or expanded.

otherwise you misunderstood and really thought god is a relativ epigenomic phenomena too.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73553 Feb 2, 2013
"This candid admission is from the evolutionist journalNature: "Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye. Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.

Gradual change versus leaps
There are two versions of evolution theory. The main version proposes that many tiny changes over millions of years made new creatures. It is called the Modern Synthesis or Neo-Darwinian evolution.

But "major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity." "The principal 'types' seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate 'grades' or intermediate forms between different types are detectable."20

Since the fossil record does not show tiny changes between one type of creature and another, a few evolutionists proposed a modification to evolution theory. It says that change occurred by occasional leaps (punctuated equilibrium), not gradually. However, each hypothetical beneficial mutation could only make a slight change. Any more than that would be so disruptive as to cause death. So punctuated equilibrium is not really about big leaps. It envisions a lot of slight changes over thousands of years, then nothing happens for millions of years. Evolutionists say with a straight face that no fossils have been found from a leap because thousands of years is too fast in the billions of years of "geologic time" to leave any. On the other hand, without fossils there is no evidence that any leaps ever happened, and of course there is no evidence that leaps or gradual changes beyond variation are happening today in any of the millions of species that still exist.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73554 Feb 2, 2013
Fossil record
Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps. Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural forces. It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later appear to be, say, a horse. In between, the whole mass is shifting about. In a few more minutes it may look like a bird. The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name. If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing. The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction. It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts. Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened."

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#73555 Feb 2, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
Fossil record
Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps. Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural forces. It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later appear to be, say, a horse. In between, the whole mass is shifting about. In a few more minutes it may look like a bird. The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name. If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing. The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction. It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts. Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened."
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
... and now you post something that refutes itself. How quaint.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73556 Feb 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>If I knew the evidence, I wouldn't have asked for it. Where is your evidence? When you say something is fact you are asserting that you have the evidence and can present it when requested, so are you lying or do you have evidence?
What is wrong with you?

I can go through these threads and see many people post evidence.

Point two you should tattoo to your arm because maybe then you'll remember it.
There is no proof only evidence.

Can you understand this?

No I guess you can't I've already told you this dozens of times.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73557 Feb 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>... and now you post something that refutes itself. How quaint.
So you don't know how to read. Go figure.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#73558 Feb 2, 2013
Langoliers, why don't you ever quote proper sources? If you are going to quote Darwin, provide a link to the source. If it is a creationist site you lose. We know that they are liars.

Going to a creationist site for information about evolution is the same as going to a Nazi site for information about the holocaust. Both will be just about as reliable.
Alien Outlaw

Kansas City, MO

#73559 Feb 2, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't know how to read. Go figure.
This question scares all humans, "Can human knowledge, thecnology and theories be applied to beings of the cosmos?

Level 6

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#73560 Feb 2, 2013
the only crime committed against humanity is homosexuality the decietfulness is trmenondous in that mutated gene it's traits are disintegrating the fabric of EVERYTHING

only mistake were the condoms that weren't used

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#73561 Feb 2, 2013
Ah Langoliers those extinctions again.
It's rare to find fossils.
Ever rarer to find imprints of the softer parts.
The oldest vertebrate imprint is found (best google for it, 540 millon years as i recal.
But it would allways take some time before mayor changes would become apparent.
Darwin tested everything, but was reallyworried about f.i. viruses and their very fast evolving and mutating.

Apropos fish and genomic proof, a new tool so to say.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/11/2...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73562 Feb 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Langoliers, why don't you ever quote proper sources? If you are going to quote Darwin, provide a link to the source. If it is a creationist site you lose. We know that they are liars.

Going to a creationist site for information about evolution is the same as going to a Nazi site for information about the holocaust. Both will be just about as reliable.
What do you call this?
Just forgot to read the link?

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#73563 Feb 2, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you call this?
Just forgot to read the link?
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
I call it garbage.

Once again, you would not go to a member of the Nazi party for information on the holocaust.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#73564 Feb 2, 2013
Langoliers, creatinonist sites not only have been shown to be wrong countless times, they have been shown to be liars almost all of those times.

Therefore ANYTHING from a creationist site is automatically assumed to be wrong until proven otherwise. You have as much as admitted that you are wrong by going to such a site.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73565 Feb 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Langoliers, creatinonist sites not only have been shown to be wrong countless times, they have been shown to be liars almost all of those times.

Therefore ANYTHING from a creationist site is automatically assumed to be wrong until proven otherwise. You have as much as admitted that you are wrong by going to such a site.
You play by your rules I'll play by my rules.
Tammy

Australia

#73566 Feb 2, 2013
Creation for sure
John three sixteen

Indian Trail, NC

#73567 Feb 2, 2013
Attention Creationists!
Please go over to the SDA forum Topix.. on the thread entitled "ATHEIST HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS" the atheists are very annoying..they(the atheists)have invaded the SDA Christian forum..Come Help with the Debate please! Thanks a million dear Christians!!!!!! God Bless!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#73568 Feb 2, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You play by your rules I'll play by my rules.
All it takes for you to lose is to point out that you play by your rules.

Trust me, your rules are the wrong rules. Look up the rules of debate.

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
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 5 min Truths 31,965
last word - first (Jun '12) 8 min Truths 7,749
hoosier hillbilly (Sep '12) 10 min Hoosier Hillbilly 1,833
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 22 min Hoosier Hillbilly 2,307
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 23 min Lumatrix 5,759
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 28 min Hoosier Hillbilly 56,889
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 30 min Hoosier Hillbilly 5,478
DILF Sets 30 minute record 50 min Hoosier Hillbilly 15
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 1 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 619
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 2 hr SLY WEST 29,134
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr I Am No One_ 162,998
REAL motorcycle traveling stories. 3 hr Mega Monster 31
More from around the web