Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222780 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.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#79958 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
no ... not at all .. Macro = what different species did the cow evolve from ?
You failed to answer my question, after a species changes skin coloring through evolution, can it then get a different hair covering thickness?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#79959 Mar 9, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>Nope, you're up and you have been up for over 10 years now. Where is your evidence for evolution. Remember, ours is a belief not based on scientific bumbling minds who contracdict themselves. Our evidence is in our Bible, in life itself, and demonstrated daily. It is you who needs time travel and to find a "black hole", just one. Sorry, it is you who has the theory of nothing, gosh you are confused by your nothing.
Our fact is that God always ways and is Alpha and Omega, with no beginning or ending. He is beyond your theory of infinity, which you can not quantify or assign a value to.
I suggest that you try to argue your point. The relativity of time and space, the lawso of physics at the quantum mechanism level and within the center of "black holes".
Come on, we know you only have evolution religion,wich changes weekly. We, well, we have a never changing "word of God."
I asked for evidence, not assertions. Where is the evidence that creationism, or even just your god, is reality?

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#79960 Mar 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote: Why do you think that the theory of evolution is wrong?
duh !!.. as you just claimed .. it's just a theory .. thank you very much

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#79961 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Actually I've pointed that out to creationists many a time when they threaten us with eternal damnation for simply disagreeing with them. They tell us that eternity is a really long time . And I say: "No it isn't."
I'll deal w/ you another time ..=:0]

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#79962 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
no ... not at all .. Macro = what different species did the cow evolve from ?
Almost certainly the now-extinct aurochs.
That's a species of wild ox.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/cat...
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#79963 Mar 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What is an "atheist site". I do not use atheist sites, I use science based sites.
You made a ridiculous claim and provided no evidence to support it.
Without evidence idiocy like yours is not only ignored, it is laughed at.
So once again, provide evidence for your idiocy.
Off to the corner with the dunce cap for you. If you have no idea about those claims or lack the ability to look them up, this discussion is already too technical for your abilities.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#79964 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. Let's say we have a group of birds called group A. Another called B, and another called C. A are American, C are European and B travels inbetween. Group A cannot reproduce with group C because there is too much genetic divergence between the two. Hence they are considered separate species. However group B is capable of breeding with both A and C, because they are genetically close to both.
But now we have a label problem. Do we say A and B are the same species because they can interbreed? Or do we put group B with C and call them a species? Or call them all separate species even though there is little difference between A to B, and B to C? This is precisely what evolution predicted, divergence which eventually leads to separate lineages.
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_class...
Domain
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria
As you can see bacteria are representative of an entire biological domain. So why is it when presented with evidence of speciation you guys move the goalposts back by a factor of 7?
Could be worse. You could have been one of those dummies who say "Evolushun iz rong cuz Big Bang hahahahahaa!!!"
So if two different species cannot mate and reproduce a viable offspring with each other because of genetic divergence, what makes you think one species can mutate into another?

So the bacteria is all the evidence you got? What species did the bacteria evolve into? You are describing evidence for natural selection in the e. coli bacteria and not evidence for speciation.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#79965 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
you know what .. I'm actually attempting to have a civil discussion with you ... when I have a sense that you have un-clenched your teeth and fists .. I will lead the discussion to deeper levels .. until then .. I will not waste my time ... do you agree ?
Then don't repeat foolishness. I told you that I really don't care about your claim of life being triune.

So let's have a civil discussion.

Why don't you believe the theory of evolution?

Do you realize that creationists have nothing except for lies and failed claims?

Most creationists have no idea what qualifies as evidence. Nor are they even willing to learn.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79966 Mar 9, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>Okay, if you use biology to support evolution, then what do you use to support biology? The exisence of a rat, does not support the existence of bats, humans and fish.
Nor does evolution make that claim.
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
The existence or nonexistence of them all do not support a common link among each. The nonexistence of dinosaurs does not support the existence of rats, bats, humans and fish.
It's not the independent existence of each which demonstrates the existence of the others. It's the collective characteristics of each which forms a pattern of nested hierarchy as expected by the hypothesis of common ancestry.
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
Your theory is just a belief and your need for it.
Projection.

I have no need for the theory of plate tectonics, but I accept it. If I was born into a world where there was an alternate mechanism to plate tectonics I'd be just as satisfied. Same with evolution. I just so happen to have been born into a world where evolution and plate tectonics are the norm.

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#79967 Mar 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Then don't repeat foolishness. I told you that I really don't care about your claim of life being triune.
So let's have a civil discussion. Why don't you believe the theory of evolution? Do you realize that creationists have nothing except for lies and failed claims? Most creationists have no idea what qualifies as evidence. Nor are they even willing to learn
tell ya what .. you fist accepted my attempt to challenge you .. correct ?? therefore ... I am more than willing for you to challenge me .. but you'll have to wait until I'm thru with my challenge to you ... agree ??

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#79968 Mar 9, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Off to the corner with the dunce cap for you. If you have no idea about those claims or lack the ability to look them up, this discussion is already too technical for your abilities.
Nope, you are the one who has shown himself to be a dunce.

First you made some idiotic posts that you could not defend. It is always up to the person making positive claims to defend his claims. Second you tried to claim I used "atheist sites" without even defining what you though an atheist site was.

As I said, I use scientific sites. They say nothing about the existence or nonexistence of any gods.

You on the other hand will probably refer to theistic sites that have been shown to lie.

Remember, evolution does not disprove, nor does it even try to disprove, the existence of god. That is a claim that only creatards make.

It does show that the stories in Genesis are myths, but we already knew that anyway.

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#79969 Mar 9, 2013
first

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#79970 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
duh !!.. as you just claimed .. it's just a theory .. thank you very much
So gravity is "just a theory" to you as well? Using the laymen definition of theory doesn't make you look intelligent, it makes you look completely clueless.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#79971 Mar 9, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So if two different species cannot mate and reproduce a viable offspring with each other because of genetic divergence, what makes you think one species can mutate into another?
So the bacteria is all the evidence you got? What species did the bacteria evolve into? You are describing evidence for natural selection in the e. coli bacteria and not evidence for speciation.
One species doesn't mutate into another one.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79972 Mar 9, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Still. You're using a valid theory to present that evolution is also real.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that if his criticism of evolution is valid then it must also apply equally to gravity and germ theory. I have pointed out that the other theories are not affected by that same criticism, therefore it cannot be a valid criticism of evolution either. All three theories rely on their own independent pieces of evidence. Evolution MIGHT be flawed/wrong/whatever, but the objection that it does not explain its respective origin is not a valid one.
Cybele wrote:
What makes the theory of evolution as valid as the germ theory and gravity?
Because all three make successful scientific predictions based on observable phenomena.
Cybele wrote:
If biology supports the theory of evolution, why don't we have evidence for a speciation event if we're still evolving?
We do, and I have provided some of it.
Cybele wrote:
If we somehow evolved from lower of forms in the phylogenetic tree of life, then why don't we know where it's going?
Because mutations are quantum events. They are somewhat unpredictable. But what evolution CAN do is make predictions on what we DO have. For instance if evolution is correct then we should not find any fossils with feathers and three middle-ear bones. That MIGHT be possible in the future, and if evolution heads that way then so be it. But it should not be possible in the past as it would be a violation of nested hierarchies. That is why we don't see horses with wings or pigs with compound eyes. We don't see Centaurs, Sphinxes or Griffins.
Cybele wrote:
Instead evolutionists claim there is no direction, no goal
Uhuh.
Cybele wrote:
no intelligence, when in fact past events for the theory suggest otherwise? Why do evolutionists reject the idea of intelligence or a creator? That's because it's propaganda and not real science.
False.

I have to repeat this a million times but it still never seems to sink in.

Evolution makes no theological claims. Science does not reject the possibility of intelligent intervention. I can even name 5 scientists off the top of my head who are theists and also accept evolution. It's just that, scientifically speaking, there is no evidence of a creator - so far. A fact which you've even admitted yourself on numerous occasions and instead complained that science wouldn't be able to verify it anyway.

So what else can I say?(shrug)

“No Appointment Necessary ”

Level 4

Since: Dec 09

Cannon, KY

#79973 Mar 9, 2013
Why can't evolution be a part of creation? Or can it?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79974 Mar 9, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
First, I posted on this thread months ago quoting Mr Darwin specifically espousing racist views.
Yes, and I posted when this thread *first started* quoting Darwin specifically espousing ANTI-racist views. AND on top of that I also pointed out that he was a product of his time when racism was rife. And on top of that I also pointed out that this whole thing is irrelevant to the validity of evolution anyway. Tycho Brahe was an astronomer, and by all accounts a bit of an ahole. But that doesn't invalidate is work in astronomy.

So don't blame me if you can't keep up.
superwilly wrote:
Secondly, why do you continually presume that those posting here have no schooling? I don't presume that you are stupid.
I didn't question your schooling, though I may have done that with others. That is because their scientific knowledge doesn't match grade school level. Which means they are either dishonest in their criticisms because they beat up a caricature of evolution rather than the actual theory, or are in fact as uneducated as they appear. Which would also make their criticisms dishonest.
superwilly wrote:
I questioned your logic and you respond with this simplistic diatribe.
That simplistic diatribe addressed your post. Sorry.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79975 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
life stands on three legs ... remove one of any .. life cannot exist
I'm bipedal.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#79976 Mar 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It does show that the stories in Genesis are myths, but we already knew that anyway.
Genesis is evidence for creation. It may have discrepancy on the time period. However that was the fault of those who did the math and calculations and their interpretations. Do you suppose God's concept of time is equivalent that of Earth time? really? What about Mars, Martians will also reject it based on their own concept of time. Remember God is not bounded to earthly concepts of space and time.

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#79977 Mar 9, 2013
I think Subduction Zone is a little to locked in his own box to see beyond the horizon ... that's okay .. good discussion is sometimes a process of elimination

Some of the world's most profoundly gifted thinkers are people who believe there is no God .. From geology to philosophy .. professors who are convinced the universe came by accident staff earth's universities .. I don't think lack of mental acumen is the common factor among atheists .. I think they fall into one of three subsets

1 .. There are those who refuse to believe because their hearts are set on self-rule .. Bernard Shaw once insisted: "I don't want there to be a God." ... His personal life was devoted to rebellion against all but that which pleased him

2 .. Then there's the stubborn who claim "my mind's made up about God so don't confuse me with any new scientific facts"

3 .. Lastly we have the Teachable Unbeliever who says .. "Until now I have not seen any credible evidence for the existence of a Creator"

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
News Your Life Story In 6 Words (Feb '08) 3 min September Daze 10,300
Woman appreciate a man that.........? (Mar '15) 25 min September Daze 199
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 28 min Dear Missus 27,390
What's for dinner? (Feb '12) 47 min Parden Pard 9,446
What's your tip for the day? (Jul '14) 1 hr Parden Pard 2,347
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Dear Missus 223,412
"2" TWO word FUN game*** (Mar '13) 1 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 1,657
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 11 hr Poo Bears 6,064
Things that make life eaiser... (Apr '15) 11 hr TheJerseyDevil 969
More from around the web