Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 218827 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

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)

“Somewhere in Time”

Level 4

Since: Dec 09

Nicaragua‎

#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"
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79978 Mar 9, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text> Well, there are situations where you recalling the event is all that can be proven or demonstrated. If you would like to explain how outside of taking your word for it, it can be proven in all instances, then you have found a way for those who believe in God to prove it's existence too.
Evolution is demonstrated by testing it scientifically.
adif understanding wrote:
A blood test would only work if his DNA or other blood samples are in the system. You fail big time here. There are thousands of unidentified dead people and cold cases all over this country let alone the world in which they will likely never be identified. You make a lousy participant in reality.
Thousands unidentified compared to the BILLIONS of people, alive and dead, who are identifiable.
adif understanding wrote:
outside of people who are convinced in some way unique to them that it's true or the God is real, you are right. But then again, so is the accounting of talking to some random stranger with not witnesses other then yourself.
Ah, the "How do you know, where you THERE?!?" argument. A fundie favourite.
adif understanding wrote:
Now if you can get a couple thousand of years behind your cosmic sheep theory and a lot of other people who claim they have been convinced by actions outside of you telling them about it, I will give it the same weight and consideration as I do the various God theories and claims.
Argumentum ad populum. Logical fallacy.
adif understanding wrote:
History is recorded then circulated and objections to the accounting are documents and in the end, hundred of years after the fact, we know something is true or relatively true in the sense of historically accuracy without ever interviewing eye witnesses or even requiring one of the least bits or repeatable scientific experiments. So far, to date, the best objections to religions are no it happened this way without ever falsifying the claim. Showing that something could be accomplished differently is not the same as discrediting that something.
So if baseless claims are not discredited then they are all valid. Therefore all UFO claims which have no evidence to debunk are valid.
adif understanding wrote:
You can stick to all the science you want. I never said anything the opposite. What I said is that science does not disprove God nor is God subject to science. Please find the ability to separate those and follow along.
I have. In fact if you were aware of my posting history you would understand this. I have never claimed that God is falsified or falsifiable. What I have pointed out is that your religious opinions are no better than anyone else's religious opinions and are therefore just as valid.
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#79979 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like the crackpot thoughts of Dr Perrenian Senapathy.
It doesn't matter what it sounds like to you. People are making articulated and accurate representations and your holding your fingers in your ears yelling I'm not listening does not make their speech disappear.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no "just theory" in science. "Theory" in science is not "wild guess". Scientific theories are a collection of facts and hypotheses that form a scientific model capable of making scientific predictions.
Yes, there very much is "just theory" in science. A theory or even law by scientific definition does not in any way preclude other hypothesis from becoming theory. You cannot say, we found through theory X that Y is created by X+1 always and never will it ever be another way. Scientifically speaking a fact is only an observation too.
Don't confuse them with the legal facts in a court room where a court does decide X is true and X will always be true in this case. A theory explains the observations through validation of hypothesis which can be right and wrong in the same sense.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Semantics is not necessary. The only "problem" with language you are seeing is a problem with language, not the science. Because reality doesn't care about the arbitrary pigeon holes we use as labels to describe things with language. That is why there are times we have problem describing what species an organism might be, just like we would have to make an arbitrary decision between calling a specific colour "more red" or "more orange" on a colour gradient.
First, quoting yourself is like saying it's true, look, I said it's true so it must be true. It's what the conspiracy theorist do to convince your that reptiles are taking over the world. It is exactly semantics through the manipulations of definitions as you can take every claim of speciation and universally apply the definition and logic that supports the claim to every day life and it breaks completely. Take the salamanders in California or the gulls on Europe which they claim are separate species simply because a geographic divide (a mountain with the salamanders and migration patterns with the gulls) means speciation because the propensity to mate is not there any more. This completely disregards the ability to breed and instead focuses on propensity to bread as the major claim for speciation. But when you take a border collie in the US compared to the same in Australia, we don't consider them separate species. If you have a horse that won't stud with certain mares, it doesn't mean the mares are a separate species. Yet, this same thing is claimed to be evidence of new species from existing species. The problem is either we are changing definitions in order to find something that wouldn't already exist or we are not currently defining the taxonomy of species properly.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, a label problem. Not an evolution problem.
Actually, it is an evolution problem as the labels are attached and given weight where we simply do not have the insight to completely understand. If the bulk of the weight is from comparing fossils of animals that we would consider the same species if alive today as different species altogether, then the case for evolution is not as solid as people pretend. If the problem is our current labeling of species and how we consider canine to be the same species, then the same problem exists as to the importance of species in evolution.

These are however, problems that are not insurmountable. It just requires a little more examination.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Or if it ever happened. You always seem to leave that part out.
If it ever happened in implied by the lack of evidence for it happening. Are you suggesting I need to draw a picture with everything I say?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79980 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
no ... not at all .. Macro = what different species did the cow evolve from ?
Ungulate bovines.

What did Jesus have for breakfast 126 days after his 13th birthday?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#79981 Mar 9, 2013
Creation, the specialist, cannot be part of any sane sdiscussion untill we get the very first teensy shred of evidence that any creator exists or ever existed. When you get that very first shre that humanity has ever seen in millenia of existence, et us know and the discussion of creationism can start for the first time.

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#79982 Mar 9, 2013
The Specialist wrote:
Why can't evolution be a part of creation? Or can it?
either way .. how did life start ... what happens after life starts is quite another issue ... I'm more interested in the origin of life .. everything else should hang from that
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79983 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
duh !!.. as you just claimed .. it's just a theory .. thank you very much
Gravity is "just a theory".

Sorry, were you under the mistaken impression that the word "theory" as it pertains to science means "wild azz guess"?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79984 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll deal w/ you another time ..=:0]
That's what they all say.

:-/

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#79985 Mar 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
One species doesn't mutate into another one.
I didn't say it occurs overnight. However, there is no DNA evidence that suggest how many mutations one species underwent throughout the millenia. Can you calculate the probability of successful mutations in a species? If so, how did DNA repair system in the genome of a species surpass these mutations? Do you have accurate proof or actual model for 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
Last Word is First Word (no "breast" word please) (Jul '15) 7 min Princess Hey 1,956
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 8 min 75 Scorpio 11,536
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 9 min This is HERSTORY 2,748
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 25 min This is HERSTORY 22,806
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 26 min SweLL GirL 15,998
True False Game (Jun '11) 29 min SweLL GirL 13,584
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 34 min SweLL GirL 6,158
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 4 hr wichita-rick 210,003
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 4 hr Grace Nerissa 68,407
News Thousands of demonstrators protest Trump in Atl... 5 hr Susanm 44
News Trump's Dark, Weird, Inaugural Campaign Speech 5 hr 16 TEEN SHOTS 76
More from around the web