Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
69,901 - 69,920 of 114,586 Comments Last updated 34 min ago

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74293
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Archaeologically speaking, little or NO!
Showing of your ignorance and arrogance.

Christianity does not even have proof of the socalled jesus ever existing. Not a shred.

Everything they have is of a later date. As proof for the church existing and their story being told.

The Torah and Tanakh are not of your religion.
You claim but you have no entitlement, and your book outright denies their laws which was G-d's law.
But the archeology is of the people and for the people, and they are not your people. And that story is more interesting, for that points to how people actually lived. You can never proof Harry Potter to have actually existed. So nor can one with parabels.

Furthermore you are unaware of the archeological evidence for 10,000 plus other gods and goddesses and nature spirits and believesystems.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74294
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>It is bad form to applaud for idiotic posts.

Do you realize how many points he was totally wrong on?
Are you aware on how much he was correct on?

Again I will say it was a nice post.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74295
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Really? What do you know about the archaeological support for Hinduism, Taoism, or Shintoism to name only three of the thousands of religions in the world?

And worse, you do know that archaeologists claim that the Exodus never happened. In other words Archaeologists all the second book of the Bible bullshit.
"archaeologists claim that the Exodus never happened"

I have 4 archaeologists in my family and none of them make that claim?

Lack of proof is no proof. You should know this.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74296
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
now you're just not making sense
What!
You actually want an explanation of markov's matrix and i presume the hidden one too, for DNA evolution.
Who's making sense.9-9
You ask people to google, if they want to learn how an estimate of possible realistic connections is calculated.
So if you google Hidden markov matrix you will find that the matrices become like a kind of 'roulettewheel'(the representation)
But that gives a better idea of lineage. As to what combination and option was responsible.
Just google.

But fundies want shattering proof. Poof out of thin air evolution. Women gave birth to monkey etc. Only then they believe.
Mention the word chance and they think of gambling and the devil.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74297
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yankee, your language demonstrates that you know very little of science and are in no position to judge evolution.
Let me help you. "Proof" is a mathematical term. You do not prove things in science. Hypotheses are developed into theories by testing, if theories fail the tests they are no longer theories. Evolution has been continually tested for over 150 years and it has passed every test. It is a well accepted scientific theory and a well accepted scientific theory is higher than a law in scientific hierarchy. That is because a law is just an observation of an event that always happens where a theory is the observation with an explanation. An observation that life evolves without an explanation would be a Law of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution tops that.
Next you are flat out wrong about viruses not evolving. Just because they are not the same sort of life as cellular life does not mean they cannot evolve. In fact by the most strict definition of evolution they do evolve.
Don't get your facts from lying creationist sites. It only makes you look like a fool.
Quite the contrary.

If I use proof incorrectly, it is out of habit to the majority who also use it incorrectly. You are correct on that count, but that by no means supports your assertion.

And no, evolution is not tested, and has never passed any test in the approximately 150 years its been around. Biology has only diminished its value as we have learned more, and the fossil records do not support it at all.

"In fact by the most strict definition of evolution they do evolve."

Strict definition? Did you think I would miss that? Yes, by the strict definition of evolution:

1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.

Which is NOT the theory of evolution, or the model.

Are you deliberately being dishonest by now truing to use non-scientific meaning of evolution? Or did it just happen to slip your mind?

And I don't need any help whatsoever from Creationists to detect a fraud. I rather miss evolution as the dominate world view, for entirely other reasons. But I can lie to myself no longer.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74298
Feb 6, 2013
 
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
On the surface, it seems logical.
If you add a smaller positive integer and a larger negative integer, you get a negative integer.
But it doesn't work that way.
If you run for office and your opponent gets more votes than you do, you lose the election.
But it doesn't work that way.
Rather, this is how it works:
favorable mutations are inherited, unfavorable mutations are not.
An unfavorable mutation could hurt a member's chances of surviving until child-bearing age.
An unfavorable mutation could also render a member unattractive, thereby hurting his or her chances of finding mates.
A favorable mutation, on the other hand, helps a member and helps that member's descendents.
A better analogy could be found in the arts and the media.
We forget everything which is unpopular and remember only that which is popular.
What songs did Petulah Clark sing besides "Downtown"?
Nobody knows and nobody cares.
What did Kyu Sakamoto sing besides "Sukiyaki"?
Nobody knows and nobody cares.
What operas did Englebert Humperdinck compose besides "Hansel and Gretel"?
Nobody knows and nobody cares.
Back to the topic:
What harmful mutations have taken place?
Nobody knows and nobody cares.
Don't feed the troll.

Not even with Memes...my goodness.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74299
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
What school does your son go too.
And then he teaches you what the thinks he remembers and then you think you can teach a.o. professors what it is all about.
Now understand why yo can't define anything, and why you get it all wrong.
i stopped reading. Virusses do mutate. And here we go what is mutation after but ....evolution.And surviving and be enhanced in a hostile environment.
You are unfit to be a parent...it seems the interpretation to what he learned came straight out of the creationist agenda.
When a virus evolves it becomes a blue parrot with an umbrella.
If not...it is not evolution.
Don't let those pseudo-scientists tell you otherwise!
Amen.
A public school, that is currently teaching what a virus is, and the debate on whether it is a living organism or not.

Oh, were you expecting it to be a private religious school? Sorry, I don't make that kind of money. But you attitude is noted, and disqualifies you from any rational discussions forthwith, since the subject was on viruses and someone else's absurd claim that they "evolve" which not even my son's very atheist, and very anti-religious biology teacher teaches. Fortunately, his brillance makes up for it in good, solid reasoning in just about everything but his assumption that evolution is valid. I let my son draw his own conclusions, FREE from propaganda and political bias from people like you that ruin science.

Don't post to me again. You are not fit to engage in any sort of discussion at all by your tone.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74300
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

trekx wrote:
<quoted text>
As a christian your bias and there for can not be objective of the facts, so calling your self a scientist is a joke ...
Not at all.

I was an atheist when I began to be skeptical of evolution. I am also a major science fiction geek, that began to see common pattern in most fiction that assumed evolution was true, but never actual touched on the specifics.

I have a very intuitive mind.

I have only been a Christian for about 3 years.I rejected evolution at least 10 years ago, as self-evidently absurd. I researched all the journals I could get my hand on, and they all shocked me on their total lack of actual evidence, and unbelievable level of assumptions and misuse of language.

Sorry to disillusion you.

But anyone that adheres to evolution without checking, and rechecking the data for themselves, is the one suffering from bias. Your claim is a slap in the face of every Christian scientist since medieval times that has brought us to the current state of high technology, and deeply insulting.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74301
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You probably do not understand the evolutionary model.
Here is a fact for you, and if you are honest I will convince you that it is true: Their is literally a mountain of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution, and none that supports creationism.
No, by studying rhe model, it convinced me that it was false.

Mutations do no occur option enough to effect change in ANY species. And positive mutations that benefit natural selection are practically non-existent.

It's really not that hard, once you understand the simplicity of the model, and its most basic premise.

It is trash, pure and simple. And if YOU were honest with yourself, you would see it too as clear as day.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74302
Feb 6, 2013
 
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
END QUOTE YANKEE YAHOO
Webster? Yahoo?

Where would YY get the idea that; the Theory of Evolution nor it's derived models, has nothing to do with biology?

FSTDT

quote:
Which is NOT the theory of evolution, or the model.

Are you deliberately being dishonest by now truing to use non-scientific meaning of evolution? Or did it just happen to slip your mind?

And I don't need any help whatsoever from Creationists to detect a fraud. I rather miss evolution as the dominate world view, for entirely other reasons. But I can lie to myself no longer.

end quote.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74303
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously do not, or there would be no issue.
You are asked to provide yours, since we had the science definitions allready hundreds of times.
So nothing comes...
Then read along but do shut up, for you make no viable contribution in this way.
If we can read it all for ourselves anyway, stop distracting us reading.
goodbye.
I told you, the scientific model ITSELF is the source.

The data provided by nearly 150 years of evolutionists is the SOURCE.

It is all there, clear as day, to obvious it is a testament to true potential of utter stupidly of humanity that it still remains in the scientific community.

The theory itself is the best, and greatest evidence against itself.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74304
Feb 6, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Only the real God is the real Scientist.
Why do you say this?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74305
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
A public school, that is currently teaching what a virus is, and the debate on whether it is a living organism or not.
Oh, were you expecting it to be a private religious school? Sorry, I don't make that kind of money. But you attitude is noted, and disqualifies you from any rational discussions forthwith, since the subject was on viruses and someone else's absurd claim that they "evolve" which not even my son's very atheist, and very anti-religious biology teacher teaches. Fortunately, his brillance makes up for it in good, solid reasoning in just about everything but his assumption that evolution is valid. I let my son draw his own conclusions, FREE from propaganda and political bias from people like you that ruin science.
Don't post to me again. You are not fit to engage in any sort of discussion at all by your tone.
Don't talk about tone, you are downright offensive from the start.
You engage, you get it wrong.

So the idea is to explain.
What follows is more wrong.

So your son knows best.
You have told everyone of.
So what are we to do with someone like you.
Given that we are bored anyway and just waisting some time...your entertainment.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74306
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the contrary.
If I use proof incorrectly, it is out of habit to the majority who also use it incorrectly. You are correct on that count, but that by no means supports your assertion.
And no, evolution is not tested, and has never passed any test in the approximately 150 years its been around. Biology has only diminished its value as we have learned more, and the fossil records do not support it at all.
"In fact by the most strict definition of evolution they do evolve."
Strict definition? Did you think I would miss that? Yes, by the strict definition of evolution:
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
Which is NOT the theory of evolution, or the model.
Are you deliberately being dishonest by now truing to use non-scientific meaning of evolution? Or did it just happen to slip your mind?
And I don't need any help whatsoever from Creationists to detect a fraud. I rather miss evolution as the dominate world view, for entirely other reasons. But I can lie to myself no longer.
Oh no, you are letting your inner idiot out.

Of course evolution has been tested. It has just not been tested by creatards. One of the simplest examples of a test is to look for a Cambrian rabbit. A Cambrian rabbit would debunk evolution. No one has ever found a Cambrian rabbit. Now according to creationism there is no reason that we should not find one. No Cambrian rabbit has been found. Evolution passed that test, creationism failed, to date. Now that could always change but it is highly doubtful.

No, I was talking about a strict scientific definition of evolution. Or to put it another way: The change in allele frequency of a population over time.

By that definition viruses evolve.

And yes, you may not know it but creationists lie all of the time. The reason that you don't know they are lying is that you don't know science. For example anytime you hear a creation site say either "evolutionists say.." or "evolution says..." The odds are over 90% that the rest of the sentence will be a lie. Not a mistake because they have been corrected many times. If someone corrects you on a mistake, especially if that "mistake" is derogatory that is no longer a mistake. It is a lie.

The also lie by a process called quote mining. More about that later.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74307
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolute proof would require a time machine. But putting forth that an INTERPRETATION of data us absolute evidence, you just outed yourself out as a very ignorant, and arrogant person.
People like you is why we have so many wars and chaos on this planet.
Wait, what?

People start wars over geology and fossils?

When did THAT happen?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74308
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you, the scientific model ITSELF is the source.
The data provided by nearly 150 years of evolutionists is the SOURCE.
It is all there, clear as day, to obvious it is a testament to true potential of utter stupidly of humanity that it still remains in the scientific community.
The theory itself is the best, and greatest evidence against itself.
Once again, it is clear you do not understand the theory or its model.

The fossil record only supports the theory of evolution. It in no way supports creationism.

“The Party Animal”

Level 2

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74309
Feb 6, 2013
 
After being created,I evolved,now it seems that I am desolving,just finishing a program

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74310
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidence? You all keep saying there's evidence yet none has been presented. Until you do, claiming there's evidence is a lie.
Evidence has always been presented.

Just look around.

Either, you assert that all of this universe is an accident, or you assert that it is by design.

It's one or the other. The extreme complexity that science has brought to light in the last 100 years or more, is testament to design, not accident. The complexity of a single cell is far beyond anything expected, infinitely more complex than anyone ever dreamed of. How cells communicate with each other, which is raw data transfer between countless trillions of cells is infinitely greater than all the supercomputers built, even if we had a million more of them than we do now. The sheer processing power of all the cells in any organism is staggering. We know LESS, not more, about how life works than we ever did before. We have raised far more questions, then answered them, in recent years.

That is real scientific evidence. Not proof, but absolutely evidence.

Nor is it a Christian view only. The Greeks, though logic alone, concluded that there can be only one God, or creator of the universe, by logical deduction. Having no knowledge of this Creator, they offered no name, and thought he was too might and aloof to care about humanity. Even they knew it was too complex, having only the faintest idea of the atom, to be an accident. Even the average human mind rejects out of intuition the notion that all of this exists from an accident.

If you free your mind from all prejudices and preconceived notions, you might see it yourself. And what you assumed was ancient superstition, becomes a new respect for your very intelligent ancestors that are not as stupid as you thought.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74311
Feb 6, 2013
 
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you, the scientific model ITSELF is the source.
The data provided by nearly 150 years of evolutionists is the SOURCE.
It is all there, clear as day, to obvious it is a testament to true potential of utter stupidly of humanity that it still remains in the scientific community.
The theory itself is the best, and greatest evidence against itself.
So then you look up a dictionary definition and find biology involved.
If you learn more you find that it is interdiciplinary but with a big chunk of statistics involved.

-Biology.
-And it is science based.
So first we need to get that straightened out.
-Then the definition. The dictionary one is not bad, but indeed we usually talk about groups, populations, and not whether a kid get's born with brown eyes, while you have blue eyes.
The definition also evolved, got refined, together with our understanding. Models likewise.
-Statistics.
-Everything else involved.

And why should evolution and religion bite...they do not.

?So where did you get this oneliner that states:
The theory itself is the best, and greatest evidence against itself.

??

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74312
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
So what are you trying to prove?
That all species are not constantly evolving?
I agree.
But I never heard anyone say that.
I have only heard people say that a population evolves when a stress compels that population to either evolve or go extinct.
I'm not trying to prove anything.

Evolutionists have been busy doing that for quite some time.

Are you asserting that all species are evolving? Well then, provide evidence. I'd LOVE to see it.

I've heard people say many things. You need to hang out with more people, and learn more, if that is all you've ever heard people say. Quaint theory, though. And absurd. Populations self-regulate when they run out of food, no need to either evolve or go extinct. Mankind only had about %5 of the current population 2000 years ago. And we could easily go back to that, and much less, without running the risk of being endangered. Our populations have risen and fallen many times over world history, without either going extinct or evolving.

Where do people get this stuff?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••