Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223194 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

#83480 Mar 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Curtis Threats! I'd almost forgotten about him. Wow, was he a character. Infinite Force, wasn't it?
That's him. Maybe he's finally succumbed to all that alien experimentation.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83481 Mar 28, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Always try to believe in the impossible. Anything can happen. You or any one else can never rule out the possibility of a first man and woman.
Already addressed. But it appears you didn't understand what was said. I suppose I was expecting too much since you make Bo look like a genius.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83482 Mar 28, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> No!
But the writers of the bible that were wrong based on their level of education.
But they were not other wrong because the flood was devastating and large, making the people then, to think it was global or universal.
Good. So like others noted we have established that the Bible is in error.
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Are you again, 100 % error free?
No, but we don't have to be. We just have to be more accurate than the Bible. And its fundies.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83483 Mar 28, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> No!
If truly the bible is false, as well the faith according to your assertions, the faith would have been long dead. But the reverse was the case.
I pointed out many things to Hog a day or two ago which were pseudo-scientific yet people still believed them. The thing you're not grasping is that faith does not REQUIRE evidence. That's why people can still have faith in concepts which either have no evidence, or just plain wrong (like young Earth creationism).

Faith does not stay when one has evidence. Faith DISAPPEARS with evidence. Evidence makes faith superfluous.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83484 Mar 28, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
I'm not religous and I don't support documented religious views. I do accept the non-religious concept of fixed species when it comes to the origin of species. Instead of descent with modification I see common desegn. I base this conclusion on the biological reproductive species term which states a species reproduce the same fertile off-spring species.
WOW!!! I-F! So how'd it work? Do we just have to say your name three times and the aliens drop you off? A bit like Beetlejuice?

How ya doin' me ol' crazy conman?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83485 Mar 28, 2013
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.
Geez man, we been through all this, remember? Ring species. Game over.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83486 Mar 28, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So you found some old bones...the rest is mere speculation and conjecture...case dismissed.
Sorry, but the case has passed not only the courts but plenty of scientific testing. I would say that you SHOULD know this, since I've posted the linky demonstrating this for you many times now.

But then we both know you've never read it and couldn't understand it even if you did.(shrug)

That's why you just posted a linky which still supported evolution rather than putting it in doubt. Oh well.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83487 Mar 28, 2013
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.
You're forgetting that "species" is an arbitrary concept. And in reality life DOES change over time. There is no genetic barrier preventing accumulative changes.

That's why so many fundies find YECism so attractive. Just one problem - it's a total denial of every single scientific field. In short, denial of reality itself.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83488 Mar 28, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Ah, total misunderstanding of speciation. Evolution doesn't claim a brand new species at the birth of a new organism.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83489 Mar 28, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
A very sharp team was on that committee. Look into it. Evo's will never publish multiple dating systems in their lit., it gets too complicated for them to also explain the lack of concordant dating results, in addition to their theme. We are supposed to blindly accept the data which is often +/- mils/Y because we are suppose to trust peer review. The fox watching the hen-house issue. I am not saying they purposely lie, its dogma.
Projection.

What's the "scientific theory" of creationism?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83490 Mar 28, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, I got A's and my 2 geo profs converted to catastrophism, one wanted to offered me time as a guest speaker. Don't you wish!
Of course you did.(pats head)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83491 Mar 28, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
I read the recorded testimony of the leading Alaskan Athabaskan chief at the time, as taken by the district Judge Wickersham in about 1900 of their flood story, the "big canoe story" etc.. Its all in Wickershams autobiography
Same for the Shoshone, I can check with some other tribes here and Canada, but that whittles down North America some on your comment.
How come there are Redwood stumps 10ft in dia. in Antarctica and when we drill on the North slope (for oil) we hit a biomass layer down deep with huge warm climate ferns and other fauna/flora? What covered them 500ft+ down, a local flood? We have fossil mega fauna there also, shells 3ft in dia etc.? For sure we must agree that the world at some earlier date had a uniform pole to pole temp that was warm. They omitted that stuff in my college geo/ classes, doesn't fit well. Quite an ommission however!
I will take a shot and postulate from the Bible a moment - how about a "very good" earth? Does that evidence make me a crackpot, I think not, actually, It woke me up.
Any velociraptors mixed with humans in that layer? Thought not.

What's the "scientific theory" of creationism?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83492 Mar 28, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not a zealot, I think outside of the box when it comes to the origin of species. I am not religious either. Just because I accept a creator(s) when it comes to the origin of species does not mean I am a religous zealot. I have yet determined the origin of species true origin on planet earth, but I have narrowed it down to two possible answers based on the biological species term. So my findings are based in the realms of science because my method of seeking for the truth is based on the evidence I observe in nature.
And which planet did the aliens take you to on your last trip? Must have been pretty far since you've been gone a while.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83493 Mar 28, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>How many is that now?
Not sure, but now I'm thinking Chuck owes me more than just that 500.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#83494 Mar 28, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean axis movement?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Penins...
Current wiki mentions a "global climate change" not that it moved in axis. Fits with the Alaska/Siberia warm climate and such going on at the same time I think. Mentions cont. drift.
I have heard there are buried palm trees and other warm weather plants in Antarctica.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83495 Mar 28, 2013
Mark wrote:
They have never found any possible mechanism in the cell to manufacture new data to the DNA.
Sure they have.

http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/TCTDUMIJ55H2B...

You just didn't know about it because you're an ignorant liar who doesn't give a f ck about science while you sit their hypocritically typing away on your computer while ignoring the 9th Commandment.(shrug)
Mark wrote:
Mindless mutations don't self-think well. The chemical write heads are not there, the processes don't exist. The cell is a closed system with well defined boundaries, the first of which is reproduction.
Simply because parental traits are variables (a special combination of convergence allowed in one sector of the DNA) exist, that's not evolution.
Sorry bub, but you're plain wrong. You are born with just under 50% of your genome from each of your parents, plus around 125 to 175 mutations which your parents do NOT have. That's new genetic information, bucko.

If this was not the case with your good self then I suggest you confer with our old buddy Infinite Force and ask him which of the aliens were responsible for your genetic makeup, because it isn't human.
Mark wrote:
In fact, this mechanism points to a creative Designer that allows unique trait's of all kinds to pass to our progeny, without fault.(In my world we call that a blessing). Otherwise, we would be seeing deformity everywhere. Heavens, we have all this fantastic and perfect reproduction going on all around us every minute, correct?
There was a baby born last week with its internal organs on the outside.

So you tell us.(shrug)
Mark wrote:
At birth, a perfectly orchestrated sequence of physical events must occur in the infant's body or they (and we) would not survive outside our mother. My challenge to you folk who believe in all this mindless, self-directed, environmentally influenced life-by-accident-and-chance stuff is to explain this transition to us less informed how this all came about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechan...

So what's the "scientific theory" of creationism?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83496 Mar 28, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
The species term you are referring to is un-provable or verifiable by the biological species term I use which is the foundation to my reasoning when I speak of fixed species for the orign of species. Similarity in sheleton structure can be interpreted as common design by the creator(s).
Except there's zero evidence of design. You have no designer, no mechanisms, and no scientific predictions on why we don't see other examples of common designs that do not fit with nested hierarchies.

Centaurs? Common design.

Pegasus? Common design.

Sphinx?

Pigs with compound eyes? Common design.

Why don't we see any of these? All are possible under common design.

What is the likelihood of finding a fossil with feathers and three middle-ear bones?
Infinite Force wrote:
In other words, we both can assume using any species term except the biological species term I am using as the basis to my fixed species concept.
Your terms are irrelevant.
Infinite Force wrote:
I don't base my conclusions off of assunptions.
Of course you do. You have assumed design based on zero evidence.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83497 Mar 28, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Biological / reproductive species: Two organisms that are able to reproduce naturally to produce fertile offspring of both sexes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
This does not prevent life from changing over time. In fact that is precisely what we observe.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83498 Mar 28, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
"I an" Kit?
My excuse is that "The Dude" told me I was a mutant, I told my wife that and I landed on the couch. So I had nothing else to do but write you folks @ 3am..
At least you can have the piece of mind that no reproductions of me will come along if this keeps up..
Well I for one am glad you are not cloned.

Uh, Curtis? Just checking, your pals didn't clone this guy, did they? By FSM I hope not.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#83499 Mar 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the case has passed not only the courts but plenty of scientific testing. I would say that you SHOULD know this, since I've posted the linky demonstrating this for you many times now.
But then we both know you've never read it and couldn't understand it even if you did.(shrug)
That's why you just posted a linky which still supported evolution rather than putting it in doubt. Oh well.
And I'm sure that a governmental court that supports science would be totally impartial and unbias...lol

You haven't a clue.

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
True False Game (Jun '11) 3 min Judy 123 16,028
Gangsta 8 min andet1987 6
The Next Person Game (Mar '11) 9 min Emerald 10,687
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... (Nov '14) 10 min Judy 123 2,769
Two rhyming words! (Jun '12) 10 min andet1987 419
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 13 min wichita-rick 226,116
Only Three Word (Nov '09) 13 min andet1987 14,331
More from around the web