Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173594 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#94113 Jun 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of pure BS.
Then name one that doesn't.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94114 Jun 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of pure BS.
If that were the case idiot you could have found an article from a a scientific journal that casts some doubt on evolution. You have not been able to do so yet.

You are lying and your lack of action shows it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94115 Jun 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter how many times you regurgitate the same failed arguments, you cannot present one shred of scientific evidence that humans and apes [or any other species] are related by common descent. Molecular homology is a pointless argument, soundly debunked over and over again. Despite repeatedmchallenges, you have failed to provide any scientific evidence as to how molecular homology is inconsistent with intelligent design. The simple parroting of the same worthless argument only underscores the weakness of your religion in explaining the natural world.
You are getting in your lying for Jesus today aren't you?

None of your claims here are true. Homology still strongly supports evolution and evolution only. You keep conflating homology and convergent evolution. Convergent traits have never been shown to be homologous. That shows evolution is the driving force and not ID
Elohim

Branford, CT

#94116 Jun 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Then name one that doesn't.
The Creation Science Picayune Gazette & Fish Wrap, The ID Times & Bird Cage Liner, Chick Tracts.....

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94117 Jun 26, 2013
And it is time to remind How's That for Stupid that he ran away from the evidence class that he agreed to take. He had failed when it came to scientific evidence long long ago in the past and I offered to help him. He started the class but ran away.

So, HST, until you prove that you understand scientific evidence I am going to remind you that you don't understand what scientific evidence is. You cannot demand it since it would do you no good at all.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#94118 Jun 26, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>The Creation Science Picayune Gazette & Fish Wrap, The ID Times & Bird Cage Liner, Chick Tracts.....
But let us not forget Urban Cowboy's excellent creationist journals.

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#94119 Jun 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot, I am not an expert in everything, though it may seem that way to a tard like me. There are times when it is correct to go to experts. This is one of them. Perhaps you should have read the Wiki article that I linked earlier:
<quoted text>
This is the most honest thing I have seen you say, here when you call yourself a tard. LMFAO
HTS

Englewood, CO

#94120 Jun 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You are getting in your lying for Jesus today aren't you?
None of your claims here are true. Homology still strongly supports evolution and evolution only. You keep conflating homology and convergent evolution. Convergent traits have never been shown to be homologous. That shows evolution is the driving force and not ID
Relabeling observations doesn't erase the problem. If you study deBeer's research, he proved that many homologous traits were produced by non-homologous genes. For example, the lenses of the eyes in two closely related species of frogs are proven to arise from two separate embryologic structures.* No one would argue that these two lenses are not homologous. Yet they are produced by different genes and therefore are not genetically related. Many other examples were cited through his research. He expressed his conclusions in his book Homology: An Unsolved Problem, as follows,
"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless."

*de Beer, Sir Gavin, Homology, An Unsolved Problem, Oxford University Press,(1971).

So you see, SZ...your intuitions, however compelling they might be, have been scientifically proven to be FALSE. Hunches must capitulate to science. Homology is a failed argument. The fact that you DarwinBots still hang onto it clearly indicates that you are groping for evidence to validate your failed religion.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94121 Jun 26, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the most honest thing I have seen you say, here when you call yourself a tard. LMFAO
My bitch is back!

And he is in a pitched battle for biggest idiot on the forum.

Jimbo is beyond stupid, he is not a contender.

So who will win today. You have to do a bit better than this post my bitch. All it shows so far is terrible reading comprehension on your part.s

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94122 Jun 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Relabeling observations doesn't erase the problem. If you study deBeer's research, he proved that many homologous traits were produced by non-homologous genes. For example, the lenses of the eyes in two closely related species of frogs are proven to arise from two separate embryologic structures.* No one would argue that these two lenses are not homologous. Yet they are produced by different genes and therefore are not genetically related. Many other examples were cited through his research. He expressed his conclusions in his book Homology: An Unsolved Problem, as follows,
"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless."
*de Beer, Sir Gavin, Homology, An Unsolved Problem, Oxford University Press,(1971).
So you see, SZ...your intuitions, however compelling they might be, have been scientifically proven to be FALSE. Hunches must capitulate to science. Homology is a failed argument. The fact that you DarwinBots still hang onto it clearly indicates that you are groping for evidence to validate your failed religion.
Name one idiot.

It is not relabeling when you show that convergent evolution does not make homologous structures. Compare a squid's eye to a human eye.

They are an example of convergent evolution. They are in no way homologous.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94123 Jun 26, 2013
By the way HST, you forgot your link.

Your quote is useless. You made the rule necessary since you quote mined so often.

I have to run for a few hours. Perhaps you will have something by the time I get back

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94124 Jun 26, 2013
And one more point HST, you might want to find an article that is more recent than 40 years old. I have my doubts if they could even identify genes at that point in time.

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#94125 Jun 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
My bitch is back!
And he is in a pitched battle for biggest idiot on the forum.
Jimbo is beyond stupid, he is not a contender.
So who will win today. You have to do a bit better than this post my bitch. All it shows so far is terrible reading comprehension on your part.s
I would say someone that calls their self a tard has to be the biggest idiot. You win the award again hands down. LMMFAO

I glad you are admitting you are gay. To consider me your bitchh you have to be gay. Oh and by the way next time you give me a reach around, use your left hand. It is softer than your right hand. LMAO

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#94126 Jun 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Relabeling observations doesn't erase the problem. If you study deBeer's research, he proved that many homologous traits were produced by non-homologous genes. For example, the lenses of the eyes in two closely related species of frogs are proven to arise from two separate embryologic structures.* No one would argue that these two lenses are not homologous. Yet they are produced by different genes and therefore are not genetically related. Many other examples were cited through his research. He expressed his conclusions in his book Homology: An Unsolved Problem, as follows,
"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless."
*de Beer, Sir Gavin, Homology, An Unsolved Problem, Oxford University Press,(1971).
So you see, SZ...your intuitions, however compelling they might be, have been scientifically proven to be FALSE. Hunches must capitulate to science. Homology is a failed argument. The fact that you DarwinBots still hang onto it clearly indicates that you are groping for evidence to validate your failed religion.
Old news. You need to look at the current definition of homology not one from 40+ years ago.
HTS

Williston, ND

#94127 Jun 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Name one idiot.
It is not relabeling when you show that convergent evolution does not make homologous structures. Compare a squid's eye to a human eye.
They are an example of convergent evolution. They are in no way homologous.
I just gave an example from De Beer's book, you moron.
HTS

Williston, ND

#94128 Jun 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Old news. You need to look at the current definition of homology not one from 40+ years ago.
Yet another cowardly dodge from Mike.
HTS

Williston, ND

#94129 Jun 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And one more point HST, you might want to find an article that is more recent than 40 years old. I have my doubts if they could even identify genes at that point in time.
DeBeer didn't identify genes. He excised the embryologist structure from developing lenses of two developing frogs, and proved that they were not genetically related.

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#94131 Jun 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
DeBeer didn't identify genes. He excised the embryologist structure from developing lenses of two developing frogs, and proved that they were not genetically related.
"DeBeer didn't identify genes /and proved that they were not genetically related."

Asshat

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#94132 Jun 26, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I would say someone that calls their self a tard has to be the biggest idiot. You win the award again hands down. LMMFAO
I glad you are admitting you are gay. To consider me your bitchh you have to be gay. Oh and by the way next time you give me a reach around, use your left hand. It is softer than your right hand. LMAO
you like to use LMAO, and such...are you a teenager from a decade ago? or is your intelligence just stuck at that level and era?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94133 Jun 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I just gave an example from De Beer's book, you moron.
You forgot the link idiot.

For you that is an invalid source.

Creatard liars who have been caught quote mining many many times must submit a linkable source. Otherwise all quotes are to be treated as garbage.

You have been caught lying many many times

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) 1 min Grace Nerissa 43,517
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 1 min Krypteia 29,708
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 min anguish 169,384
Think you Have problems 1 min theotherside 1
News Weird 'service' animals show up in odd places 7 min wichita-rick 4
News Golf Club Owner Agrees to Pay $100,000 Over Man... 27 min Fundie Fatwass De... 7
Word Association (Mar '10) 31 min wichita-rick 18,161
More from around the web