Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 171576 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.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#95496 Jul 21, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all most of my point is this crowd really needs to get out. I would wager that some of the posters here are over 500 pounds. The attraction of atheism and online is crazy. At the very least have this conversation evolve. The Fundamentalist Christians have grown bored with you, my guess is the are out doors cooking while you ramble on as you do. You believe you only have one life, you should do better than this with it.
Yet here you are.

Congratulations, hypocrite.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#95497 Jul 21, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all most of my point is this crowd really needs to get out. I would wager that some of the posters here are over 500 pounds
170, thank you very much.
Robert Stevens wrote:
The attraction of atheism and online is crazy. At the very least have this conversation evolve. The Fundamentalist Christians have grown bored with you...
TFB
Robert Stevens wrote:
...my guess is the are out doors cooking while you ramble on as you do.
Actually, at the moment, I am helping with a large fundraiser for the Volunteers Assisting Veterans. Very worthy organization.
Robert Stevens wrote:
You believe you only have one life, you should do better than this with it.
Better than what? Raising money for veterans. What are you doing for your fellow man this afternoon? Besides bitching at us, I mean.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95499 Jul 23, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That seems to be the view of many modern Christians.
Don't think so dan.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#95500 Jul 23, 2013
This argument has come to an end by implying the "Universal Law Of Non-Contradiction."

The theory of evolution is a contradictory philosophy and the scientific method is flawed!

By applying the universal law of non-contradiction (because nature does not contradict its self) you are either/or when it comes to a biological reproductive species.

Changing from one biological reproductive species to an opposite/incompatible biological reproductive species over time is a violation of the universal law of non-contradiction.
You people need to know when to say when on an argument!

"The Flawless Scientific Law And Method That Detects Contradictory Information That Is Not Lined Up When Used To Explain How Nature Works, Because Nature Does Not Contradict It’s Self And Neither Should The Information Used To Explain How Nature Works By Scientist, Researchers, Individuals And Political World Governments Which Uses Information To Instruct And Govern Humanity with In The Ecological Environment We Live In"

>>>> http://www.natureinforce.org/science-nature-i...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#95501 Jul 23, 2013
How is evolution contradictory?

I can assure you Infinite Force you are in error.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95502 Jul 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
How is evolution contradictory?

I can assure you Infinite Force you are in error.
Contradictory Trees: Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070

One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well. Evolutionists have always claimed that the different species fall into a common descent pattern forming an evolutionary tree. That is, the various traits—from the overall body plan down to the DNA molecular sequences—from the various species, consistently reveal the same evolutionary pattern. If one gene shows species A and B are closely related and species C is more distantly related, then the other genes will reveal the same pattern. Evolutionists call this consilience. In practice however, this consilience is superficial. There are profound contradictions between the different traits, and in a new attempt evolutionists just set a new record for failure: out of 1,070 genes, every single one contradicted the hoped for evolutionary tree, as well as each other. 1,070 different genes and 1,070 different evolutionary trees. Consequently evolutionists are now manipulating the data even more than before to obtain the desired results.

These days when evolutionists compare species they usually use molecular sequence data, such as genes. But what if a particular type of gene is found in species A but not in species B? Obviously this constitutes a big difference between these two species. It is not as though the gene merely is different to some extent. It is altogether missing from one of the species. Nonetheless, the typical strategy in such cases is simply to drop that particular gene from the data set. That big difference is, in a stroke, eliminated from the analysis. This is one type of prefiltering evolutionists use.

Prefiltering is often thought of merely as cleaning up the data. But prefiltering is more than that, for built-in to the prefiltering steps is the theory of evolution. Prefiltering massages the data to favor the theory. The data are, as philosophers explain, theory-laden.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95503 Jul 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
How is evolution contradictory?

I can assure you Infinite Force you are in error.
Part 2

But even prefiltering cannot always help the theory. For even cleansed data routinely lead to evolutionary trees that are incongruent (the opposite of consilience). As one study explained, the problem is so confusing that results “can lead to high confidence in incorrect hypotheses.” And although evolutionists thought that more data would solve their problems, the opposite has occurred. With the ever increasing volumes of data (particularly molecular data), incongruence between trees “has become pervasive.”

This problem became all the more obvious in a new study that examined 1,070 different genes found in a couple dozen yeast species (yes, the data were prefiltered). All those genes taken together produced one evolutionary tree, but each of the 1,070 different genes produced a different tree—1,070 plus 1 different trees. It was, as one evolutionistadmitted “a bit shocking.”

Or as another evolutionist put it,“We are trying to figure out the phylogenetic relationships of 1.8 million species and can’t even sort out 20 [types of] yeast.”

Clearly something is amiss and for evolutionists it cannot be the theory. That means it must be the data. The solution is postfiltering, to go along with the prefiltering. Whereas evolutionists once assured themselves that their problems would go away when more data became available, they now are headed in exactly the opposite direction.

What is needed now is less data. Specifically, less contradictory data. As one evolutionist explained,“if you take just the strongly supported genes, then you recover the correct tree.” And what are “strongly supported” genes? Those would be genes that cooperate with the theory. So now in addition to prefiltering we have postfiltering. We might say that the data now are theory-laden-laden. Evolutionists will be eliminating the uncooperative genes and retaining those genes with what evolutionists euphemistically refer to as “strong phylogenetic signals.”

Then they can tell us again that evolution is a fact because the evidence says so.

That’s just the stuff of good solid scientific investigation.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/contr...
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95504 Jul 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
How is evolution contradictory?

I can assure you Infinite Force you are in error.
Contradictory Trees: Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070

One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well. Evolutionists have always claimed that the different species fall into a common descent pattern forming an evolutionary tree. That is, the various traits—from the overall body plan down to the DNA molecular sequences—from the various species, consistently reveal the same evolutionary pattern. If one gene shows species A and B are closely related and species C is more distantly related, then the other genes will reveal the same pattern. Evolutionists call this consilience. In practice however, this consilience is superficial. There are profound contradictions between the different traits, and in a new attempt evolutionists just set a new record for failure: out of 1,070 genes, every single one contradicted the hoped for evolutionary tree, as well as each other. 1,070 different genes and 1,070 different evolutionary trees. Consequently evolutionists are now manipulating the data even more than before to obtain the desired results.

These days when evolutionists compare species they usually use molecular sequence data, such as genes. But what if a particular type of gene is found in species A but not in species B? Obviously this constitutes a big difference between these two species. It is not as though the gene merely is different to some extent. It is altogether missing from one of the species. Nonetheless, the typical strategy in such cases is simply to drop that particular gene from the data set. That big difference is, in a stroke, eliminated from the analysis. This is one type of prefiltering evolutionists use.

Prefiltering is often thought of merely as cleaning up the data. But prefiltering is more than that, for built-in to the prefiltering steps is the theory of evolution. Prefiltering massages the data to favor the theory. The data are, as philosophers explain, theory-laden.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/contr...

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#95505 Jul 23, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Contradictory Trees: Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070
One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well. Evolutionists have always claimed that the different species fall into a common descent pattern forming an evolutionary tree. That is, the various traits—from the overall body plan down to the DNA molecular sequences—from the various species, consistently reveal the same evolutionary pattern. If one gene shows species A and B are closely related and species C is more distantly related, then the other genes will reveal the same pattern. Evolutionists call this consilience. In practice however, this consilience is superficial. There are profound contradictions between the different traits, and in a new attempt evolutionists just set a new record for failure: out of 1,070 genes, every single one contradicted the hoped for evolutionary tree, as well as each other. 1,070 different genes and 1,070 different evolutionary trees. Consequently evolutionists are now manipulating the data even more than before to obtain the desired results.
These days when evolutionists compare species they usually use molecular sequence data, such as genes. But what if a particular type of gene is found in species A but not in species B? Obviously this constitutes a big difference between these two species. It is not as though the gene merely is different to some extent. It is altogether missing from one of the species. Nonetheless, the typical strategy in such cases is simply to drop that particular gene from the data set. That big difference is, in a stroke, eliminated from the analysis. This is one type of prefiltering evolutionists use.
Prefiltering is often thought of merely as cleaning up the data. But prefiltering is more than that, for built-in to the prefiltering steps is the theory of evolution. Prefiltering massages the data to favor the theory. The data are, as philosophers explain, theory-laden.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/contr...
Can you explain this in layman's terms? Maybe I will understand what you are trying to say better.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#95506 Jul 23, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Can you explain this in layman's terms? Maybe I will understand what you are trying to say better.
It appears to be a misinterpretation of this article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657258

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#95508 Jul 23, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't think so dan.
I would say you are half right.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#95509 Jul 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears to be a misinterpretation of this article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657258
Thanks for the link SZ. I have been looking over this and some related articles and it appears to be methods papers comparing methodologies for construction of phylogenies using molecular techniques. I just wanted to see whether the BaTzar is just cutting and pasting spam without even a hint of understanding what he posted.

I am going to go over this when I get access to the full paper and other related work I found, but it appears to be more snatching at straws and misleading review of legitimate work.
Dak-Original

Slough, UK

#95510 Jul 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
How is evolution contradictory?
I can assure you Infinite Force you are in error.
I suppose the dude does not like his faith book to be contradicted! LOL!

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#95511 Jul 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
How is evolution contradictory?
I can assure you Infinite Force you are in error.
No I am not in error. Re-read original post!

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#95512 Jul 24, 2013
Dak-Original wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose the dude does not like his faith book to be contradicted! LOL!
I don't care and I have nothing for religions. The theory of evolution is nothing but contradictions! It's not even an argument any more!

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#95513 Jul 24, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care and I have nothing for religions. The theory of evolution is nothing but contradictions! It's not even an argument any more!
Chick Tracts, home-schooling and the Creation Museum, right?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#95514 Jul 24, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
No I am not in error. Re-read original post!
No, I don't have to.

You failed my simple challenge.

You as much as admit that you are wrong by not taking it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#95515 Jul 24, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care and I have nothing for religions. The theory of evolution is nothing but contradictions! It's not even an argument any more!
Show a supposed contradiction.

I am willing to bet you either misstate the theory of evolution, or you misstate the so called "contradictions".

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#95516 Jul 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Show a supposed contradiction.
I am willing to bet you either misstate the theory of evolution, or you misstate the so called "contradictions".
Biological diversification from the same to opposite/incompatible biological reproductive species. Sorry, nature doesn't contradict its self, the theory of evolution does!

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#95518 Jul 24, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Biological diversification from the same to opposite/incompatible biological reproductive species. Sorry, nature doesn't contradict its self, the theory of evolution does!
So what is the prognosis on what IS actually going on.\
Since evolution faILS to explain the process satisfactory to you.
You should have a thesis explaining the wrong and what is right.

Feel free to start explaining this at any time. and do remember to present some verifiable evidence showing why evolution is wrong, and why your hypothesis is right.

We will wait , but mind you we will not hold our breath. because it is you who is in the thin air.

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
Word Association (Mar '10) 1 min Mega Monster 17,608
Word association (Jun '07) 2 min Mega Monster 3,311
Word Association (Jun '10) 2 min Mega Monster 28,403
Describe your sex life using a movie title... 3 min beatlesinafog 52
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 4 min Neil Young 14,558
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 7 min beatlesinafog 19,123
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 8 min Judy 123 8,898
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 11 min beatlesinafog 1,864
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 14 min KNIGHT DeVINE 29,498
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 19 min Old Sam 12,624
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 23 min CJ Rocker 166,969
Last Word is First Word (no "breast" word please) 34 min Knock off purse s... 96
More from around the web