Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 174020 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.

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#97887 Aug 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Still confused on Kind I see.
I know enough to say it is not a classification used by scientists.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97888 Aug 17, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>Is that the same Ken Ham who is in prison for tax fraud?
Until 2017.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97889 Aug 17, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>My mistake. You're correct.

I was thinking of Hammy's buddy, Kent Hovind.
Oops got me too

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#97890 Aug 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Baxter works with Charles Ware. He and Ken Ham co-authored Darwin's Plantation: Evolution's Racist Roots. They contend Darwin did more than anyone else to popularize racism.
No, that would be the Bible that popularized racism.

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Leviticus 25:44-46

New International Version (NIV)
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97891 Aug 17, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>And even more shockingly, the only people who know this are a handful of American Protestant fundamentalist Christians who know nothing about science! Praise Cheeses! It's a miracle!
Scary isn't it?

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#97892 Aug 17, 2013
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#97893 Aug 17, 2013
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#97894 Aug 17, 2013
I could go on if you want.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#97895 Aug 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Still confused on Kind I see.
Yes. That is because your side has never defined them properly.

Are bacteria a kind?
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97896 Aug 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Yes. That is because your side has never defined them properly.

Are bacteria a kind?
Yes
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97897 Aug 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Yes. That is because your side has never defined them properly.

Are bacteria a kind?
"Where are the "Biblical kinds" of animals defined?
One of the common creationist arguments, when confronted with evidence of what they call "micro-evolution", goes like this: "Sure, organisms can adapt to their environment -- like growing longer beaks or becoming resistant to poisons -- but they all stay part of the same 'kind'. I've never seen one animal give birth to another 'kind' of animal."

I've seen this argument on Askville, as well as other sites. But no one ever defines what the "kinds" of animals are, even when I've asked in discussions. Clearly, a "kind" is something different from a species, but what is it? Is there a list somewhere?

Is a liger a different "kind" from a lion and a tiger? How about mules, donkeys, and horses? Are all bacteria part of the same "kind"? How about different breeds of dog?(I've never seen two poodles beget a dachshund!)"

Biblical kinds are a broader category than species, yet that was not always the case ...
Genesis 1 gives us the general idea about Biblical kinds, defined or described according to reproduction. Adaptation and mutation allowed them to change and yet genetic information is not added. A bird does not turn into a elephant / dinosaurs do not evolve into birds. There are limits to adaptation which we observe in nature and in the fossil record.
resident

Portland, TN

#97898 Aug 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You never heard of the CIA?
Figures.
I bet they're watching you.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97899 Aug 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Yes. That is because your side has never defined them properly.

Are bacteria a kind?
Part 2

Jonathan Sarfati explains this quite well -

"Creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’(Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). Thus the biblical kinds would have originally been distinct biological species, i.e., a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring but that cannot so breed with a different biological species.
But creationists point out that the biblical ‘kind’ is larger than one of today’s ‘species.’ Each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. God made sure that the original creatures had enough variety in their genetic information so that their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.
Based on the biblical criterion for kinds, creationists have made several deductions about the modern descendants of the original creations. They deduce, for example, that as long as two modern creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are descended from the same kind.3 Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind.4 The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that two creatures are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.
The boundaries of the ‘kind’ do not always correspond to any given man-made classification such as ‘species,’ genus, family, etc. But this is not the fault of the biblical term ‘kind’; it is actually due to inconsistencies in the man-made classification system. That is, several organisms classified as different ‘species,’ and even different genera or higher groupings, can produce fertile offspring. This means that they are really the same species that has several varieties, hence a polytypic (many type) species. A good example is Kekaimalu the wholphin, a fertile hybrid between a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), i.e., between two different so-called genera.5 There are more examples in reference 3.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97900 Aug 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Yes. That is because your side has never defined them properly.

Are bacteria a kind?
Part 3

Biologists have identified several ways that a loss of genetic information through mutations (copying mistakes) can lead to new species—e.g., the loss of a protein’s ability to recognize ‘imprinting’ marks,‘jumping genes,’ natural selection, and genetic drift. When these mutations take place in small populations, they can sometimes result in sterile or nonviable offspring. Or changes in song or color might result in birds that no longer recognize a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Either way, a new ‘species’ is formed. Thus, each created kind may have been the ancestor of several present-day species.
But again, it’s important to stress that speciation has nothing to do with real evolution (GTE), because it involves sorting and loss of genetic information, rather than new information.
The biblical model predicts rapid speciation
The biblical creation/Fall/Flood/migration model would also predict rapid formation of new varieties and even species. This is because all the modern varieties of land vertebrates must have descended from comparatively few animals that disembarked from the ark only around 4,500 years ago. In contrast, Darwin thought that this process would normally take eons. It turns out that the very evidence claimed by evolutionists to support their theory supports the biblical model.
Biologists have identified several instances of rapid adaptation, including guppies on Trinidad, lizards in the Bahamas, daisies on the islands of British Columbia, and house mice on Madeira.6 Another good example is a new ‘species’ of mosquito that can’t interbreed with the parent population, arising in the London Underground train system (the ‘Tube’) in only 100 years. The rapid change has ‘astonished’ evolutionists, but should delight creationists.7 Scientific American admits as much.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant’s studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches).[SA 80]
And why should creationists deny such things? All of this so-called microevolution is part of a created and fallen world, but has never been observed to add new genetic information. In fact, the sorts of changes which are observed are the wrong type to drive the evolutionary story.8 Scientific American is forced to make a pointless claim about evidence of ‘profound’ changes:
Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis, and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.[SA 80]
Again, do these profound changes increase information? No—populations are seen losing information, and adapting within the constraints of the information they already have. In contrast, goo-to-you evolution requires something quite different—the progressive addition of massive amounts of genetic information that is novel not only to that population, but to the entire biosphere."

For the entire article see -

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2...

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#97901 Aug 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Still confused on Kind I see.
Not hard to be confused on a meaningless term. You don't really notice since confused seems to be your resting state.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#97902 Aug 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes
Good, then all animals, all plants, and all fungi are another kind.

The diversity of bacteria is greater than the diversity of all of these put together:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#97903 Aug 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Part 3
Biologists have identified several ways that a loss of genetic information through mutations (copying mistakes) can lead to new species—e.g., the loss of a protein’s ability to recognize ‘imprinting’ marks,‘jumping genes,’ natural selection, and genetic drift. When these mutations take place in small populations, they can sometimes result in sterile or nonviable offspring. Or changes in song or color might result in birds that no longer recognize a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Either way, a new ‘species’ is formed. Thus, each created kind may have been the ancestor of several present-day species.
But again, it’s important to stress that speciation has nothing to do with real evolution (GTE), because it involves sorting and loss of genetic information, rather than new information.
The biblical model predicts rapid speciation
The biblical creation/Fall/Flood/migration model would also predict rapid formation of new varieties and even species. This is because all the modern varieties of land vertebrates must have descended from comparatively few animals that disembarked from the ark only around 4,500 years ago. In contrast, Darwin thought that this process would normally take eons. It turns out that the very evidence claimed by evolutionists to support their theory supports the biblical model.
Biologists have identified several instances of rapid adaptation, including guppies on Trinidad, lizards in the Bahamas, daisies on the islands of British Columbia, and house mice on Madeira.6 Another good example is a new ‘species’ of mosquito that can’t interbreed with the parent population, arising in the London Underground train system (the ‘Tube’) in only 100 years. The rapid change has ‘astonished’ evolutionists, but should delight creationists.7 Scientific American admits as much.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant’s studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches).[SA 80]
And why should creationists deny such things? All of this so-called microevolution is part of a created and fallen world, but has never been observed to add new genetic information. In fact, the sorts of changes which are observed are the wrong type to drive the evolutionary story.8 Scientific American is forced to make a pointless claim about evidence of ‘profound’ changes:
Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis, and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.[SA 80]
Again, do these profound changes increase information? No—populations are seen losing information, and adapting within the constraints of the information they already have. In contrast, goo-to-you evolution requires something quite different—the progressive addition of massive amounts of genetic information that is novel not only to that population, but to the entire biosphere."
For the entire article see -
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2...
Look at you taking a dump on here again. And you use AIG brand toilet paper. How nice.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#97904 Aug 17, 2013
Sorry, I tend to ignore copy and paste from sites that have been shown to lie in almost every article.

Tsar, why don't you see if you can find some real scientific articles that back up your claims.

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#97905 Aug 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Scary isn't it?
People who reject reason are always scary.

So if the universe is really 6,000 years old, then why do we see stars that are more than 6,000 light years away?

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#97906 Aug 17, 2013
Oh wait I know. The light from stars that are millions of light years away was made by Satan, same as carbon dating. That tricky bastard.

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) 3 min Another Grey Daze 44,014
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 7 min Spirit67_ 8,737
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 8 min Dragon Love 169,654
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 9 min beatlesinthebog 2,679
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 11 min DILF 2,577
The Yes/No Game (May '11) 11 min stacked and proud 8,001
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 11 min Parden Pard 9,793
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 14 min Jennifer Renee 13,412
name my cat 1 hr DILF 59
More from around the web