Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 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

Birkenhead, UK

#73601 Feb 3, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
Well, I would say that creationists are sitting at home laughing their azzes off...because they know it takes the 'will of God' to make life.
They know nothing while pretending to know everything.

xxxooxxx wrote:
Is that a hypothesis on your part, or a theory?
The theory of creationists is a valid working theory.
xxxooxxx wrote:
You have no evidence, but you believe that it will happen...that would imply faith on your part would it not?lol
The fact there is scientific research belies your claim.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73602 Feb 3, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
"Evolutionists generally believe that although the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter was a highly improbable event
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation is creationism. Your source then goes on to make up numbers regarding probabilities which is not possible since not all the variables are known. Ergo, they lied (again). Also, like you, their "scientific alternative" is Goddidit with magic, which makes it highly hypocritical of them to pretend to be discussing scientific evidence.
Langoliers wrote:
If all life started from one speck of life, some where along the line you'll wind up with your first human. Why then would there not be a bottleneck.
If we have our "first" human, then it logically had parents. If so, there is logically numerous contemporaries who are still genetically compatible. That's what the genetics shows. You remove those contemporaries with the Adam & Eve and Noah scenarios.
Langoliers wrote:
Oh and God has no issues with your sexual reproduction bottlenecks.
You can't seem to grasp that God controls the laws they don't control him. Go figure.
Yes, I know. Meaning evidence is meaningless to you because any and all problems are fixed with Godmagic. Meaning you lie every time you pretend to talk about evidence. And ironically, you attempt to control God by placing your own laws upon Him, because He MUST have done things the way YOU say so.
Langoliers wrote:
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.
#1 The warm pond theory
The scientific evidence indicates that life did not and could not somehow arise spontaneously from some warm little pond, as Darwin thought. What we find from the evidence around us and from the fossil record is that, as the law of biogenesis states, life can only arise from life.
That's not what Pasteur's "law" was referring to. It was about the erroneous notion that fully-formed organisms such as maggots in carcasses (later found to be the result of flies laying eggs in bodies) could arise spontaneously. It said nothing about the natural development of life via chemistry. This is still irrelevant to the validity of evolution.
Langoliers wrote:
The supposed simplicity of the cell. So it turns out that cells are far more complex and sophisticated than Darwin could have conceived of. How did mere chance produce this, when even human planning and engineering cannot? In fact, no laboratory has come close to replicating even a single human hair!
Equating evolution with "random chance" is a long time creo caricature. This does not address the validity of evolution. In science emergent properties deals with natural forces producing complexity.
Langoliers wrote:
Everything we know about DNA indicates that it programs a species to remain within the limits of its own general type. Genetic changes that do occur are typically small and inconsequential, while large mutations, rather than producing improved and novel designs, are overwhelmingly harmful to the organism's survival.
There are no limits, unless the Earth is 6,000 years old. Mutations can be detrimental, neutral or beneficial. Detrimental mutations tend to be weeded out via natural selection, which fundies always ignore.

Continued:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73603 Feb 3, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
Yet faced with the evidence, he (Darwin) admitted: "The distinctiveness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty... 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 serious objection to my theory"
Yes, as a good scientist he proposed problems and potential falsifications to his theory. He was later vindicated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transiti...

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Evidence is subsequently ignored by fundies.
Langoliers wrote:
But have we seen either in present life forms or in the fossil record that creatures are slowly changing and mutating from one kind to another?
Yes. See fossil record and ring species.
Langoliers wrote:
His discounting of the Cambrian Explosion.
Um, soft bodied organisms followed by hard-bodied organisms and increasing biological diversity anyone? Nope, sounds like evolution hadn't discounted it at all!

Though not sure why YEC's would want to mention events that apparently took longer than they think the Earth has been around for.
Langoliers wrote:
Yet this argument is based on an analogy that's quite weak since the fossil record shows no gradual evolution of these limbs from one species to another.
Which of course is incorrect, as seen in the fossil record. It's also interesting that homology also happens to fit into the same nested hierarchies observed in DNA. Which is why dolphins (as per their example) are more closely related to us than fish. They go on to postulate "common design" as an alternative. Such a limitation is only necessary to save on time and resources. Something an all-powerful immortal entity has a limitless supply of.
Langoliers wrote:
His theory of human beings evolving from apes.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...

Not wrong.
Langoliers wrote:
His theory of the tree of life.
It was called nested hierarchies. First spotted by a creationist. Then later by others, including Darwin.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Langoliers wrote:
As Jonathan (AIDS denier) Wells notes: " no one has ever observed speciation"
Wrong. Ring species. Besides, when fundies say "speciation" what they really mean is violation of nested hierarchies (dog giving birth to cat) and-or complete biological class change (bacteria to a human). And they mean it to be within a human lifetime. These would falsify evolution.
Langoliers wrote:
His rejection of biblical creation by God
At most the man was an agnostic, but he did see that nature did not support Biblical literalism. However people's religious opinions have no bearing on the validity of science.

Continued:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73604 Feb 3, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
He promoted the idea that the world of matter and energy, mainly through natural selection and variation, might well account for all life we see around us a philosophy of science known as scientific materialism.
That can't be said only of him, but rather science as a whole. And to correct this gross miscaricature of science here, it does not rely on the "philosophy of scientific materialism", also often referred to as "philosophical naturalism", but instead relies on METHODOLOGICAL naturalism. This argument merely demonstrates creo's are just pished that they still can't perform scientific tests on magic. That's their problem.

And finally:

"We believe that Scripture, both the Old and the New Testament, is God's revelation, and His complete, expressed will to humanity. Scripture is inspired in thought and word, infallible in the original writings, is the supreme and final authority in faith and in life, and is the foundation of all truth"

http://www.ucg.org/fundamental-beliefs-info/

Which is an admission of throwing scientific objectivity out the window. So I ask again, why be dishonest and pretend that evidence is important when your "scientific alternative" is Jewmagic?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73605 Feb 3, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So if nothing was created as you claim, you imply that it(Universe) has always been here...is that your claim?
That is one possibility.
So your saying there's a possibility that the big bang theory is wrong?
It's possible. But the universe always being here may not *necessarily* preclude the Big Bang.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73606 Feb 3, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Likewise.
You all are even more into this.
Your response doesn't even make sense in English, never mind in reasoned logical argument.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#73607 Feb 3, 2013
Clone wrote:
<quoted text>Im sorry, I dony speak Godsmack. WTF are you talking about? In plain english this time.
In simple or basic English, the alpha and omega( the beginning and the end also known as God almighty, can never be created).

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#73608 Feb 3, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you Charles
You keep up the good work too.
Thanks!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#73609 Feb 3, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
On all counts.
Show me your evidence, how the universe including the galaxies came into form.
Secondly, explain clearly how non humans evolved to became humans.
Waiting for a sincere answer.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73610 Feb 3, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
The Dude Wrote:
"Particle/anti-particle pairs have been scientifically observed to spontaneously appear in a vacuum. There is no cause."
So your implying that any time there is a vacuum, Particles/anti-particles spontaneously appear?
No.
xxxooxxx wrote:
How many?
Not many. It's a low probability event. In other words, a rare event. But it's still been scientifically observed.
xxxooxxx wrote:
If a vacuum is all that's required to produce Particles/anti-particles, then any vacuum would produce an infinite number of Particles/anti-particles.(?)
Potentially. But since one such occurrence is a low probability event, a succession of them has an even lower probability, which would increase exponentially the more you invoke. Don't ask me the math, I'm not a quantum physicist or mathematician. So I'm giving you a basic rundown, nothing more. Seek Polymath257 if you're interested in more details.
xxxooxxx wrote:
and again, if this be the case, then the vacuum itself would be the cause, and the effect would be the Particles/anti-particles.
The vacuum is the medium, not the cause. There is no preceding event to "cause" them.

Just like a forest fire, the air is the medium the trees stand in, it's not the cause of the fire.(although this is a cause and effect event, caused by the rise in temperature).
xxxooxxx wrote:
And what would be the cause of the vacuum? The absents of Particles/anti-particles, that create the vacuum.
So the law of cause and effect would still apply even under this scenario.Would it not?
No, as that would require your "law of cause and effect" to work in circular here. The vacuum causes the particle/anti-particle and the lack of particle/anti-particle causes the vacuum? Doesn't make sense. As it happens in observed instances of particle/anti-particle pair generation the vacuum was already present.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73611 Feb 3, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> In simple or basic English, the alpha and omega
That's Greek.

Just sayin'.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73612 Feb 3, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree...you are assuming natural processes...and claim you make no assumptions.
That's not really an assumption when that's all that's observed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73613 Feb 3, 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?
Nature is not self evidence because it can be tested.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#73614 Feb 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's "we?" I am not a scientist, but they have collected a ton of evidence to support their theories, that's why they're theories and not hunches. Next time just say you don't have any evidence, because to believe in something without having evidence to support it is delusion, and you have that in spades thus far.
No answer or clear explanations of human evolution from non humans to date, so in that regard we don't need any shit called a theory, as an answer.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#73615 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Right.
"...certain astronomical bodies are not where they should be...", so darkmatterdidit, right?
In times like these, your resentment of God is an insult to your own intelligence.
I know that God is a Genius, because He's sure causing you to make a fool of yourself.
<quoted text>
Fools seldom differ.*shrug*
<quoted text>
So as absurd as darkmatterdidit might be, you will work with it because you have no better theory?
I will stick with Goddidit, because I see no better theory.
That is it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73616 Feb 3, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
"This candid admission is from the evolutionist journalNature blah blah
(yawn) All previously addressed. Though I have to point out that your source is not a YEC. You have used YEC apologetics in the past. I thank you once again for demonstrating the incoherency of the creationist position.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73617 Feb 3, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't know how to read. Go figure.
Actually you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have used a contradictory source.

I didn't actually get as far as whether the source contradicted itself or not, it only mattered that it contradicted you. Oh, and had the obligatory reference to Godmagic.

So actually now that I think about it, yes, it does actually contradict itself too.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#73618 Feb 3, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
" I dony speak Godsmack"
You should leave then seeing as you can't keep up.
Lol
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73619 Feb 3, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you call this?
Just forgot to read the link?
We call it a creationist site, not a science site.

You didn't notice?

Seriously?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73620 Feb 3, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You play by your rules I'll play by my rules.
You don't have rules.

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
Word association (Jun '07) 4 min Mega Monster 2,879
Word Association (Jun '10) 4 min Mega Monster 27,425
Word Association (Mar '10) 5 min Mega Monster 17,101
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 5 min Papa Smurfaletto 31,669
Word Association. (Nov '10) 5 min Mega Monster 17,352
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 7 min Hoosier Hillbilly 5,320
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 8 min Hoosier Hillbilly 4,326
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 15 min Hoosier Hillbilly 195
News Naked Couple Busted For Sex In Library Loo 20 min DILF 28
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 29 min DILF 10,922
Things that make life eaiser... 1 hr -CatCiao- 276
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr I Am No One_ 161,827
More from around the web