Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216819 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

#83104 Mar 27, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
I bet you do NOT know for a fact that they did not exist as such.
Actually we do. The Adam and Eve scenario is not genetically viable. That is why mitochondrial Adam and Eve are separated by thousands of years, but that also acknowledges the fact that they both had plenty of contemporaries.

Therefore you are required to invoke magic to make the scenario work.
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
Thats where science comes in.
Goddidit with magic is not science. You don't have any science. You couldn't care less about science. All you have are philosophical arguments which have been around for thousands of years. They are no longer relevant to science. Perhaps back in the day they were, as part of the necessary development of the critical thinking process which eventually led to technological development. However today though those same arguments are now being used not for the purpose of advancing knowledge but rather advancing apologetics.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83105 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*
Bingo. They are modifying scientific models to more closely match observable reality in order for them to make better and more accurate scientific predictions. This is what distinguishes science from religious dogma.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83107 Mar 27, 2013
Mark wrote:
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.
Since trilobite and eye evolution is quite well documented, PLUS the fact that even today every single kind of eye you could imagine already exists ranging from light sensetive skin to complex eyes your assertions are absurd.
Mark wrote:
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. That’s your brainwashing, and those who practice it will one day pay the price for it. Utter foolishness!
Yes we are aware that your mantra is "JUST SAY NO!" but it unfortunately ignores the facts of reality.
Mark wrote:
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!
You've ignored shedloads more, including the fact that genetic new genetic material is not only possible but also reality.
Mark wrote:
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.
Only if evolution requires violating nested hierarchies, which would actually falsify evolution. Facts are:

Fossils - we have them. Genetics - we have it. New genes - we have them. Evolutionary change - we have it. Speciation - observed. The evidence is there, you just have to be willfully ignorant not to notice. That's why any scientific information we present is ignored by creationists without rebuttal. Your posts on the other hand are addressed, and in fact could be by yourself if you had the slightest interest of looking it up.

But you don't.

Again, not our problem.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83108 Mar 27, 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.
Yes, it's called physics.

Whether or not there's an invisible magic Jewish wizard behind it all has not yet been demonstrated. The last person who was able to do that was 2,000 years ago. And even that's based on hearsay.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83109 Mar 27, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
If by "wrong" you meant inaccurate; I will have to disagree, because as you said, the Bible is written in allegories etc.
Then it's worthless for making scientific pronouncements on period.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#83110 Mar 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Since trilobite and eye evolution is quite well documented, PLUS the fact that even today every single kind of eye you could imagine already exists ranging from light sensetive skin to complex eyes your assertions are absurd.
Precisely.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83111 Mar 27, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
The idea is that whichever way one chooses to interpret reality can be justified.
No they can't. As I pointed out to both you and Mark over the past few weeks, scientists interpret the evidence that the world and the universe is old. Creationists interpret the evidence and say it is young. One of these destroys all life in the universe. Ergo one is factually incorrect. Both "interpretations" are NOT equally valid.
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
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.
The attributes have not been adequately defined. About the only attribute we know is intelligence, and that has not been scientifically demonstrated in any way shape or form whatsoever.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83112 Mar 27, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Yeah, you think.
The fact we have not found Adam and Eve's remains is your problem, not ours. But yes, genetics points to common ancestry far far earlier than Adam and Eve, whenever the heck they were supposed to exist. So basically if Adam and Eve were just two people amongst thousands or millions of others their impact on science is fairly negligible. It would only be a relevant impact if humanity did indeed spring from this couple and this couple only.

So hey, maybe mitochondrial Eve really did get it on with a guy called Adam.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83113 Mar 27, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
I shall write in response to this idea once again because I cant believe one human can be so stupid.
Look what he wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You do have a point in that it is possible your invisible wizard may have evidence which is not yet fathomed or discovered. However based on the evidence thus far, atheism is not an unreasonable scientific hypothesis.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#83114 Mar 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Does it make you feel good to claim to know what goes on in homes you've never been to?
Not at all.. and not what I said.

are you saying that religious cults don't indoctrinate their young? seriously?
CBOW

Dover, PA

#83115 Mar 27, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>those kids weren't OWNED by those wealthy homeowners, were they? keep trying dear...
Wouldn't a god fearing person just given them aid?
we know that human society is far more moral than your mythical god...how can one own another human?
face it, yur horrible, prick of a god was made up by humans.
your cult lied to you...again...
Where have you been in the last 50 years? You do realize that the internships by any tradesman were accomplished through no pay. Attorneys, doctors, masons, machinists, and other skilled labors were learned without pay, some as many as 3-5 years. Is that considered slavery? Let me see, someone like you, a government dependent, wouldn't know.
CBOW

Dover, PA

#83116 Mar 27, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasn't the whole Exodus thing about "let my people go", from slavery?
Indeed.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#83117 Mar 27, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed.
and then go own other humans...
it must suck to be in a cult where you god is less moral than i am....

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#83118 Mar 27, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Where have you been in the last 50 years? You do realize that the internships by any tradesman were accomplished through no pay. Attorneys, doctors, masons, machinists, and other skilled labors were learned without pay, some as many as 3-5 years. Is that considered slavery? Let me see, someone like you, a government dependent, wouldn't know.
lame, lame lame, assed try..

they weren't owned by the other human, were they?

your cult lied to you....again...

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#83119 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.
The UK has nukes too and a growing Muslim community that has members interested in influencing the local government.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthomp...

Sarah could not possibly have done a worse job as president than the POS we have jerking off in the Oval Office right now.
CBOW

Dover, PA

#83120 Mar 27, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>lame, lame lame, assed try..
they weren't owned by the other human, were they?
your cult lied to you....again...
Ancient Rome wasn't under the influence of God, what's their excuse for slavery and murder? You're so narrow minded and angry, why?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#83121 Mar 27, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Answered very well by The Dude in post #83107. Read it again.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Well, soft spots don't tend to fossilize, do they? But we have worm-like creatures aplenty and we know that contemporary worms have eyes like that, so the inference is easily made. And you really have NO IDEA what a cell's mechanism will "support" or not support. That's Christian bullshitting at its best.
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Variation in pure "Kind" gene pools is a different matter and is often interpreted or proposed as evolution, but is macroevolution.
Scientifically, there is no such thing as a "kind," Bible boy. Whatever kind means changes as needed by your lamentable arguments.
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
That’s your brainwashing, and those who practice it will one day pay the price for it.
I missed this early. Have you now resulted to threatening us with eternal torture at the hands of your loving/angry Jesus? LOL!

This kind of satisfying, fundamentalist Christian REVENGE FANTASY really gets you through the night, doesn't it?
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
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).
Once again the sleazy bait and switch by the Liars for Jesus Club.

Evolution requires BOTH mechanisms: gene mutation/variation PLUS the filtering action of natural selection. Of course no one claims that "Variation in gene pools" alone does the trick.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#83122 Mar 27, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Not at all.. and not what I said.
are you saying that religious cults don't indoctrinate their young? seriously?
Yeah, it is what you said. Most people, whether believers or not, do try to plant their own ideology into their kids minds, so what? You do it too, that's their right just as it is yours to try and influence your own family. Some people just try for a set morals and submitting to local laws, then allow the kid to follow (or not) their ideology of choice.
Your comments show that you would, if you could, prevent people from exercising their right to think differently than you. Talk about a futile agenda.
Patriot

Nashville, TN

#83123 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.
You chaps would love Mike Huckabee, a godly, moral and upright man,.and not a heathen like many want to follow.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#83124 Mar 27, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
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. That’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.
By the way, how are you doing on that reasonable question I asked you yesterday?

Have you found the name of just ONE qualified, PhD'ed biologist or geologist who is NOT a Christian and NOT religious, but yet who has concluded that the earth is only about 6000 years old and that humanity spring from two first individuals 6000 years ago BASED SOLELY AND COMPLETELY ON THE EVIDENCE?

Do you agree that this is a reasonable question to ask and that you should not have any trouble finding such a person -- millions of them, actually -- if reality actually conformed to your religious beliefs?

And assuming you CANNOT find such a person -- do you find it telling and very odd that the ONLY PEOPLE who advocate your 6000 year-old scenario are Bible-beleiving American Protestant fundamentalist Christians of one stripe or another?

I mean, shouldn't it be OBVIOUS what is going on here?

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
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 11 min Grace Nerissa 67,218
Answer a question with a question (Apr '15) 13 min Grace Nerissa 3,805
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 14 min wichita-rick 207,069
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 21 min Princess Hey 148,464
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 29 min wichita-rick 16,872
Any Word ! (Mar '11) 1 hr Knock off purse s... 6,427
True False Game (Jun '11) 1 hr Knock off purse s... 13,120
What Topics knows about you 1 hr Mountain View 67
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 3 hr Aussie Kev 10,630
More from around the web