Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 219629 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.

HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83084 Mar 26, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Even as we 'speak' there are Christian Apologists working on what they are going to have to do to adjust understanding of Adam and Eve for their congregants.
Even as we 'speak' there are theoretical Physicists working on what they are going to have to do to adjust understanding of protons and neutrons for their consensuses.

*Shrug*
Mark

United States

#83085 Mar 26, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately for you, 3-year olds can almost understand science's point here, since we happened to have myriad examples in both the plant and animal kingdoms of light-sensitive patches, plants with the rudimentary ability to sense light, etc. In other words, the more complex eyes of mammals are on display in their earlier, proto forms in nature all around us.
Meanwhile, all the crackpot creationists can do is wring their hands and say, "But, Garsh, it's all so COMPLICATED it had to be done by Jesus!"
<quoted text>
It WOULDN'T you idiot. For the 20th time, natural selection is NOT a conscious, directed process. There is no GOAL to evolution Whatever is suited to its environment survives and thrives and spreads. Nothing has to be PERFECT, just good enough (cf. the human eye, with its crossed wiring and hinky design).
<quoted text>
Would you also give me that you dishonest Jesus Freaks will lie like crazy in the service of your Lord? Your Lady Hope was an inveterate liar, apparently.
<quoted text>
Not likely to see much evolution within a 150-year span in a large, complex creature like a bird. But you know that, don't you. LOL
<quoted text>
No, liar, the LONG passage of time allows the undirected process of evolution (gene mutation, genetic drift and sexual recombination PLUS natural selection) to do its work -- no more, no less.
<quoted text>
You're an asshole and I'm wasting my time, I know but....on the off chance that someone intelligent is reading along...
From one generation to another, a dog always produces a dog. Science would agree with that.
However, that first offspring (call it Generation 1) is always slightly different from its parents, due to the combination of parental genes and to gene mutations.
Now if you followed Generation 1 to Generation 2, 3, 4, 5--- etc. all the way to Generation 1 MILLION, a million years later, you would probably find that the offspring called Generation 1,000,000 is SO different from Generation 1 that the two species would no longer be able to mate with one another and science would therefore classify it as a new and different species.
THIS is what science says happens in the Theory of Evolution -- not a fish coming out of a rock.
As above, you hold to the sensitive spot hypothesis leading to eye development. This is a tough sell on the geologic chart, where trilobites at the bottom sport eyes found to be very complex, can even correct for underwater aberrations. No transitionals' have been found supporting the magical concept of softspot to eyes. For your theory to be proved there should have been thousands and adaptive types as you claim, but there are none, and the cell's closed mechanism doesn't support it. Yes, if I repeatedly show pictures of such a tale to a trusting child they will eventually believe it. ThatÂ’s your brainwashing, and those who practice it will one day pay the price for it. Utter foolishness!

I think you have missed or ignored my point regarding the past study of fruit flys in attempting to generate positive mutations in the DNA. I repeat for you - after thousands of said generations (to speed up generational time)being observed in controlled tests, the concept of evolution failed to produce any such needed changes at all. So what is observed in the cell mechanism is what we get. You assert that that's not enough time, time, time the magical maker!

Variation in pure "Kind" gene pools is a different matter and is often interpreted or proposed as evolution, but is macroevolution. That doesn't provide the evolutionary leap of an opossum to a lemur that can reproduce,(which is exactly what current human evolution lineage drawings show). Evolutionist now claim this all happened quickly out if sight somehow, leaving no evidence. Wishful thinking.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83086 Mar 26, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
...He doesn't exist...
You are entitled to your views.

As a matter of fact, you can say whatever you want and be justified in this reality.

You can look at a rock and say that it doesnt exist; IF you can explain that its existence as a real object is dependent on so on and so on...

But it is undeniable that natural power exists: so there must be a Source which is The Almighty.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#83087 Mar 26, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Even as we 'speak' there are theoretical Physicists working on what they are going to have to do to adjust understanding of protons and neutrons for their consensuses.
*Shrug*
I seriously doubt it.(shrug)

Creationists are consistently wrong.

Why is that I wonder.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#83088 Mar 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You keep bringing that, i have told you before, there is no way you can rule out the possibility of a first man and woman. Therefore, the bible was right about that. For the past centuries and millennium, what have you guys done to invalidate the bible? None!
Just noises. No one can stop what God has started, lets watch!
Why do you think we can't disprove parts of the Bible??

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#83089 Mar 26, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
You are entitled to your views.
As a matter of fact, you can say whatever you want and be justified in this reality.
You can look at a rock and say that it doesnt exist; IF you can explain that its existence as a real object is dependent on so on and so on...
But it is undeniable that natural power exists: so there must be a Source which is The Almighty.
I'm sorry HOG, I look at reality and easily recognize it. If there is a rock in front of me I can see its there and do not try to deny it.

The subject of God however is totally different. This is an unseen unknown creature that is a figment of imagination. There can be no proof the He exists and there is no way to prove Him, so the logical conclusion is He is a non-entity.

In our world there is no magik or supernatural....never was. If you think there is magik than you probably believe in angels, demons, spirits, hell and heaven, a Satan that controls our world and all that other crap....that's really creepy for a grown man/woman to buy into.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#83090 Mar 26, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet you do NOT know for a fact that they did not exist as such.
<quoted text>
Thats where science comes in.
Science help to search for evidence and data; give it time.
<quoted text>
But the parables and allegories effectively embody concepts which are embedded in the fabric of reality.
While the parables and allegories are effective in the purpose intended for them, you have nothing to talk about; for the function of language is to communicate meaning.
You say:
"I bet you do NOT know for a fact that they did not exist as such."

As much as anything can be proven or disproven...Adam and Eve have been thoroughly disproven...by at least 3 or 4 lines of evidence.

Homo-sapiens first appeared in Africa around 200,000 years ago, and the DNA evidence concurs that we DID NOT arise from 1 couple living 6,000 years ago....or 4 couples 4350 years ago. It never happened.

You can believe anything you want HOG, but I think I will believe facts and the truth.
Aphelion

Satellite Beach, FL

#83091 Mar 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
At one point everyone did speak one language, then they branched off as populations became isolated and evolved into what we use today.
The English language, to the colonists from England, was native to them. Just as the French brought the French language here and the ... well, Spanish brought the Spanish here ... originally. But people in England still have to learn English, just like we do.
So your premise is that primal man in Africa spoke the same language as primal man in China. Your stupidity has no bounds and is only outdone by your unbelievable arrogance.

You should really get an education instead of proclaiming one, then there is a chance that you may not make such a fool of yourself, but not likely.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83092 Mar 27, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I seriously doubt it.(shrug)
Well you are seriously wrong.

"... all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final."
[http://www.psychologytoday.co m/blog/the-scientific-fundamen talist/200811/common-misconcep tions-about-science-i-scientif ic-proof]

So if scientists are not working to adjust the understanding of protons and neutrons and even God Himself; they are seriously wrong too.
thewordofme wrote:
Creationists are consistently wrong.
Why is that I wonder.
"Wrong" implies morality is associated; you are on your own with moral philosophy.

If by "wrong" you meant inaccurate; I will have to disagree, because as you said, the Bible is written in allegories etc.

Allegories and such can transcend context more often than not, and as such possess general accuracy when applied to compatible subjects.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83093 Mar 27, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry HOG, I look at reality and easily recognize it. If there is a rock in front of me I can see its there and do not try to deny it.
You miss the point totally.

The idea is that whichever way one chooses to interpret reality can be justified.

Thus nothing can convince you to believe what you dont already choose to believe; you can describe reality how you choose and associate your own meanings and values.

Reality conforms to meaning, as long as the elements in the reality are represented by elements in the idea.
thewordofme wrote:
...This is an unseen unknown creature that is a figment of imagination.
That figment of imagination is the mind's representation of the approximation of the Nature/Character of the Agent which is the Source of its potentials.
thewordofme wrote:
There can be no proof the He exists and there is no way to prove Him, so the logical conclusion is He is a non-entity.
That conclusion is fundamentally illogical; for you cannot say that there is no way to prove "X".

The nature of the evidence required to support a claim is dependent upon the nature of the subject/element of which the claim is made: as such, we test for evidence of wetness with things that are dry.

All attributes of God have manifested in the natural world.
thewordofme wrote:
In our world there is no magik or supernatural....never was.
There is no science to test that; so you can make no objective conclusions on the matter.
thewordofme wrote:
If you think there is magik than you probably believe in angels, demons, spirits, hell and heaven, a Satan that controls our world and all that other crap....that's really creepy for a grown man/woman to buy into.
All of those things which you mention have totally difference meanings than the ones you think you know.

The word "Satan" for example simple means "accuser"; so one is present in every criminal court.*shrug*

You are only kicking against pricks.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83094 Mar 27, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
...
Homo-sapiens first appeared in Africa around 200,000 years ago,
That disproves nothing.

The reference to time is irrelevant; it is power that creates, not time. Time doesnt even really exist in and of itself.

Furthermore, the Bible never stated in what natural historical year man was created.
thewordofme wrote:
...and the DNA evidence concurs that we DID NOT arise from 1 couple living 6,000 years ago....or 4 couples 4350 years ago. It never happened.
That is totally superfluous to the argument.

YOU HAVE NOT FOUND THE REMAINS OF ADAM AND EVE SO YOU CANNOT MAKE ANY FINAL CONCLUSIONS ON THE NATURE OF THEIR STRUCTURES.

Furthermore, IF common genes suggest common ancestry, there can be no DNA evidence to prove that we did not arise from 1 couple: because human DNA are comprised of similar genes.
thewordofme wrote:
You can believe anything you want HOG, but I think I will believe facts and the truth.
Yeah, you think.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83095 Mar 27, 2013
I shall write in response to this idea once again because I cant believe one human can be so stupid.

Look what he wrote:
thewordofme wrote:
...There can be no proof the He exists and there is no way to prove Him, so the logical conclusion is He is a non-entity...
But ladies and gentlement look at the definition of "Reality":

Reality:

"Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been,WHETHER OR NOT IT IS OBSERVABLE OR COMPREHENSIBLE." [Wikipedia.com]

Which brings us to logical conclusion:

Not all real and existing things will be provable: because reality includes that which is incomprehensible, yeilding do direct way to prove or disprove them.

THE ATHEIST IS NOT A REALISTIC PERSON.

Clearly the Atheist is a troubled individual.
FREE SERVANT
#83096 Mar 27, 2013
Something caused everything to work the way it does and if we can not say it is super then what is?

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#83097 Mar 27, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Something caused everything to work the way it does and if we can not say it is super then what is?
Average?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#83098 Mar 27, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Even as we 'speak' there are theoretical Physicists working on what they are going to have to do to adjust understanding of protons and neutrons for their consensuses.
*Shrug*
Because refining our understanding of reality is evil.

/sarcasm

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#83099 Mar 27, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
YOU HAVE NOT FOUND THE REMAINS OF ADAM AND EVE SO YOU CANNOT MAKE ANY FINAL CONCLUSIONS ON THE NATURE OF THEIR STRUCTURES.
Furthermore, IF common genes suggest common ancestry, there can be no DNA evidence to prove that we did not arise from 1 couple: because human DNA are comprised of similar genes.
WTF?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83100 Mar 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Why the concern? We Americans couldn't care less about UK politics.
You have nukes. You have fundies. We couldn't care less about US politics - as long as no fundies are President. That's why we worried when Sarah Palin entered politics.
Libertarian

London, UK

#83101 Mar 27, 2013
Atheistic scientist?!

Anti-theistic scientist?1

What are you talking about?
A proper scientist can be none of the above. Science deals with facts supported by evidence, it is not changed depending on the point of view of someone. Thats the whole point.

Presumably those numptys who still deny evolution never visit a doctor, never take medicine, never have operations or accept any modern medical knowledge.

Once we mapped the genome and it backed up everything we knew about evolution that was the proof!

Science however does not claim all the answers, thats the whole point, We want evidence etc. Only religion has the arrogance to say it has the answer while not actually knowing anything.

It's your poor ignorant children I feel sorry for. You're condeming them to living by bronze age ideas when the rest of us live in the modern world. Unless they're lucky enough to be properly educated and think for themselves.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#83102 Mar 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You have nukes. You have fundies. We couldn't care less about US politics - as long as no fundies are President. That's why we worried when Sarah Palin entered politics.
ARGH! Knock on wood!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83103 Mar 27, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
That cant be right.
The objective would have to precede the scientific, in order for the scientific to be valued for its objectivity.
No precedence necessary. In fact it would be simultaneous. If I dig up a bone everyone else can see it. You quite simply have no clue as to what you're talking about.
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
The tone of your expression suggests that your intellects is pathetic enough to seek refuge in a limited philosophy represented by so-called science.
How tragic.
On the contrary, science doesn't give a flying fig about philosophy. It is, as they say, as useful to science as ornithology is to birds. All it deals with is what is practically demonstrable. Your position is not practically demonstrable. That is because you value (your) philosophy more than reality. That's your problem, not anyone else's.

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 Man 'immune' to deadly snake venom after allowi... (Oct '13) 5 min Save Those Pharts 12
News Swedish politician: officials should have sex i... 11 min wichita-rick 2
News Man Bitten By Snake In Car After Sale (Aug '11) 11 min Phart Starts Now 13
News Snake Slithers Out of ATM as Man Makes Withdrawal (Nov '11) 14 min Phart Real Hard 66
News Mass. officials search for fugitive snake (Aug '13) 17 min Phart Real Loud 5
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 18 min wichita-rick 211,705
News Woman finds snake in couch brought home from curb (Dec '13) 19 min Special Phart 8
News Thousands of demonstrators protest Trump in Atl... 1 hr Lavey 1,540
A to Z songs by title or group! 1 hr CJ Rocker 1,016
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr _Susan_ 71,442
Who Are You Missing Today? (Feb '12) 4 hr Enzo49 413
More from around the web