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
78,701 - 78,720 of 114,586 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83357
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
Let's see, you post an article about science from the lifestyle section ... strike one.

Roger is really just a fancy mathematician, actually, who's assertion of the "soul" or that "physics is not adequate for explaining consciousness" (duh)... is not supported by a peer reviewed paper at all, he just wrote a book about it to sell to gullible people.

Stuart is a physician ... specializing in anesthesiology ... and he has no peer reviewed paper with that assertion either.

That's three strikes, just for fun ... let's continue.

The article calls it a theory ... when it's just a hypothesis and an assertion that ignores a lot of research done in neurology. There's a reason we don't allow mathematicians do brain surgery and why anesthesiologists, part time psychologists, don't understand the advances of artificial intelligence. Luckily, intelligent people actually judge the artificial intelligence challenges and projects, if these two were involved Siri wouldn't have even been written.

Learn how to do research, I didn't even get that far into the article and already destroyed the stupid in it.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83358
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
When you say that you are not religious then claim a designer it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself.
The fixed species concept is not a religous one when it comes to the origin of species. Second, just because the fixed species concept demands a creator(s) does not mean it's automatically religious. The fixed species concept is based on evidence (biological species term) not un-testable faith.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83359
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you feel about the fact that our ancestors mated with neanderthals and the connection that that makes with the prior Homo species. And that we non-Africans carry a small percentage of Neanderthal genes/blood
Your facts is based on contradictory un-observed data when when it comes to the biological reproductive species term. This is the only species term I accept in biology. A biological reproductive species is only able to reproduce fertile off-spring of the same species and this reproductive process is fixed which prevents the rise of a new biological species.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83360
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
The fixed species concept is not a religous one when it comes to the origin of species. Second, just because the fixed species concept demands a creator(s) does not mean it's automatically religious. The fixed species concept is based on evidence (biological species term) not un-testable faith.
Um, no, it's still called creationism, and it is based on denying a lot of evidence ... like the entire fossil record.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83361
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Your facts is based on contradictory un-observed data when when it comes to the biological reproductive species term. This is the only species term I accept in biology. A biological reproductive species is only able to reproduce fertile off-spring of the same species and this reproductive process is fixed which prevents the rise of a new biological species.
But the offspring is always different than the parents.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83362
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, no, it's still called creationism, and it is based on denying a lot of evidence ... like the entire fossil record.
The fossil record cannot be tested with the biological species term. Any other species term is based on pure assumption by saying similarity of different species in the fossil record means descent with modification The fixed species concept observes common design for similarity found in the fossil record. I only accept the biological species term and this term shows by observation biological species are fixed.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83363
Mar 27, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you feel about the fact that our ancestors mated with neanderthals and the connection that that makes with the prior Homo species. And that we non-Africans carry a small percentage of Neanderthal genes/blood
Research Raises Doubts About Whether Modern Humans and Neanderthals Interbred

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83364
Mar 27, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see, you post an article about science from the lifestyle section ... strike one.
Roger is really just a fancy mathematician, actually, who's assertion of the "soul" or that "physics is not adequate for explaining consciousness" (duh)... is not supported by a peer reviewed paper at all, he just wrote a book about it to sell to gullible people.
Stuart is a physician ... specializing in anesthesiology ... and he has no peer reviewed paper with that assertion either.
That's three strikes, just for fun ... let's continue.
The article calls it a theory ... when it's just a hypothesis and an assertion that ignores a lot of research done in neurology. There's a reason we don't allow mathematicians do brain surgery and why anesthesiologists, part time psychologists, don't understand the advances of artificial intelligence. Luckily, intelligent people actually judge the artificial intelligence challenges and projects, if these two were involved Siri wouldn't have even been written.
Learn how to do research, I didn't even get that far into the article and already destroyed the stupid in it.
your too funny..."a fancy mathematician" LMAO

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83365
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
The fixed species concept is not a religous one when it comes to the origin of species. Second, just because the fixed species concept demands a creator(s) does not mean it's automatically religious. The fixed species concept is based on evidence (biological species term) not un-testable faith.
Really?

What is the evidence for fixed species?

Are you saying that offspring will have exactly the same DNA as its parents?

That has been found not to be the case.

It looks like your fixed species idea falls immediately on its face.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83366
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
The fossil record cannot be tested with the biological species term. Any other species term is based on pure assumption by saying similarity of different species in the fossil record means descent with modification The fixed species concept observes common design for similarity found in the fossil record. I only accept the biological species term and this term shows by observation biological species are fixed.
What?

Now you are just spouting nonsense.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83367
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
But the offspring is always different than the parents.
That is true but they are still the same biological reproductive species and they still remain the same biological species. The laws of nature are fixed and never changes and it is this law that governs biological reproductive species which are fixed.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83368
Mar 27, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Research Raises Doubts About Whether Modern Humans and Neanderthals Interbred
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/...
"The findings of a study by researchers at the University of Cambridge..."

Of course these where just "fancy researchers" at a "fancy University"...case dismissed...lol

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83369
Mar 27, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
That is true but they are still the same biological reproductive species and they still remain the same biological species. The laws of nature are fixed and never changes and it is this law that governs biological reproductive species which are fixed.
You have not mentioned what these laws of nature are or how species are fixed.

You may be confusing species with clade.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83370
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, no, it's still called creationism, and it is based on denying a lot of evidence ... like the entire fossil record.
So you found some old bones...the rest is mere speculation and conjecture...case dismissed.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83371
Mar 27, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
The fixed species concept is not a religous one when it comes to the origin of species. Second, just because the fixed species concept demands a creator(s) does not mean it's automatically religious. The fixed species concept is based on evidence (biological species term) not un-testable faith.
Actually it sorta does.

And you have yet to say what this supposed evidence is.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

G'dansk

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83372
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Your facts is based on contradictory un-observed data when when it comes to the biological reproductive species term. This is the only species term I accept in biology. A biological reproductive species is only able to reproduce fertile off-spring of the same species and this reproductive process is fixed which prevents the rise of a new biological species.
My facts are based on reproducible and well attested science. I don't give a crap whether you believe or accept it.

The fact that we all (mostly) carry a small percentage of Neanderthal genes/blood is observable in the lab makes your argument superfluous.

Also there is this thing in the laws of most countries called circumstantial evidence. Its been used to put many people in prisons.

You are using a very old and useless creationist meme.'How do you know, were you there'??

We weren't there, but we know Adam and Eve as written in the Bible never existed.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83373
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
What is the evidence for fixed species?


A biological species is able to reproduce fertile off spring. It is this species term alone that proves ALL species is fixed because inter species breeding does not produce fertile off-spring. This concludes that biological species are fixed.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that offspring will have exactly the same DNA as its parents?
The off-spring would be a variation of the parents. This is called a constant variable within a bioogical reproductive species.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

G'dansk

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83374
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Research Raises Doubts About Whether Modern Humans and Neanderthals Interbred
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/...
Reading the piece I couldn't help but think; that still works to the advantage of us atheists.

It HAS been thought for quite awhile now that we Homo-sapiens and Homo-neanderthalensis came from the same ancestor. It is thought, but not proven yet, that Homo-heidelbergensis was that common ancestor. Go to Wikipedia and look for drawings of that ancestor.

Go to MIT site for more info:
Sankararaman and co say that by this measure, humans and Neanderthals must have shared their genes between 47,000 and 65,000 years ago, well after the exodus from Africa.

So, again we are tied into prior Homo species and we ARE in the line of great apes.

Thatís good evidence for the first theory that humans and Neanderthals enjoyed one almighty love-in about 50,000 years ago in Europe, although the real story is probably one of rape and pillage rather than of peace and love.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428880/g...

Don't you just love science??

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83375
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
A biological species is able to reproduce fertile off spring. It is this species term alone that proves ALL species is fixed because inter species breeding does not produce fertile off-spring. This concludes that biological species are fixed.
<quoted text>
The off-spring would be a variation of the parents. This is called a constant variable within a bioogical reproductive species.
What!?

No.

You, sir or madam, are an idiot.

I asked for evidence, not nonsense.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83376
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
My facts are based on reproducible and well attested science. I don't give a crap whether you believe or accept it.
The fact that we all (mostly) carry a small percentage of Neanderthal genes/blood is observable in the lab makes your argument superfluous.
Also there is this thing in the laws of most countries called circumstantial evidence. Its been used to put many people in prisons.
You are using a very old and useless creationist meme.'How do you know, were you there'??
We weren't there, but we know Adam and Eve as written in the Bible never existed.
Biological reproductive species is an observed phenomena in nature on how a species is created at birth. Your other man made species terms does not show how a species is created at birth in nature. Its just a concept made up by a man.

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.

•••