Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 168467 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: Dec 08

Location hidden

#98343 Aug 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor bohart is an idiot at best.
He gets angry when his superstitions beliefs are challenged. I am always happy to supply evidence when requested. Since creationists have none a request for evidence tends to drive them a bit batty.
Poor sucking my bone,...he gets angry when his superstitious belief of how life began is called out for the bullshit it is.

I hereby request evidence of how the first life came about using the scientific method.
Observable,
testable,
repeatable.

and please don't ask me to view a cartoon

You don't have it, then you've lied about your evidence

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98344 Aug 21, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor sucking my bone,...he gets angry when his superstitious belief of how life began is called out for the bullshit it is.
I hereby request evidence of how the first life came about using the scientific method.
Observable,
testable,
repeatable.
and please don't ask me to view a cartoon
You don't have it, then you've lied about your evidence
You complete tard!

Since abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage and there are competing hypotheses means we are not sure which is the path that life took.

Second abiogenesis is not evolution. They are related but different sciences. For evolution to be true we don't need abiogenesis to be natural. We do have a surfeit of evidence that evolution occurred.

Why do you focus on abiogenesis moron? Do you think that if you disprove it that will disprove evolution? You won't. Even your precious God could have made the first life. For the theory of evolution it makes no difference.

The evidence so far points to abiogenesis.

And since you could not even understand a "cartoon" I don't see the point in linking any other evidence for you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98345 Aug 21, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I have found over 26 definitions for the word 'species'
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006...
Idiot, that is not "26 different definitions for the word 'species'". Those have 26 different prefixes. The word "species" is part of a phrase, it is not 26 different definitions.

They get dumber every day.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98346 Aug 21, 2013
Unfortunately I do have to work a bit and make a living.

I hope that blowfart is around when I get back. Odds are he will spew some unsupported idiocy and run away.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98347 Aug 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>I can think of only one functional definition of "species". And having too many definitions is better than having none. There is no functional definition of "kind" as used by creatards.

What is a kind? Try to be consistent. If bacteria are a kind then eukaryotes are a kind. Which means that creatards are once again hoisted by their own petard.
Darwin's claimed macro evolution which means one kind producing another kind.
Not bacteria evolving into bacteria, birds evolved in to birds and if the bird was a finch the NEW SPECIES is still a finch. insects evolving into insects and if it was an ant it's still an ant and if it was a fly its still a fly.
Turning on or off genes is nothing amazing. God put those genes there for animals or insect ect. To adapt to changing environments. It's a little like an electrician wiring the house so you can turn lights on when it gets dark. It's called planning ahead. Intelligent design. Every time a species has been isolated you claim a new species evolves. The fact is EVERY time the DNA has gotten shorter NEVER new DNA just different switches turn on an off and other genes lost for ever because adaptation is no longer needed. As a result these "NEW" species are on the short road to extinction.

Why do you observe these facts and still believe in macro evolution?
And you claim not to be religious.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98348 Aug 21, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Can I list a few myths that you guys seem to have permanently latched onto??

Of course I can.

The following are Biblical myths:

Creation 6,000+- years ago
Adam and Eve....this has repercussions for Jesus
Noah's flood
The Tower of Babel
Moses writing the Pentateuch
Moses
The Exodus, and all the attendant magik or 'miracles'
Abraham
Lot
Known Writers of the Gospel
They are not myths.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98349 Aug 21, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, I almost forgot the biggest myth....God
Well at least you capitalized God.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98350 Aug 21, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>Sucking zone is right about one thing, to believe in these myths is idiocy
Yes in deed.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98351 Aug 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>Its probably correct. Since plants and animals share a eukaryote ancestor and that ancestor probably had chloroplasts and could photosynthesise then at least technically animals would have evolved from plants! But its not like a daffodil suddenly sprouted a mouth and legs.
How do you get from plants to animals?
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98352 Aug 21, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>That analogy hold true as much as saying,
Bicycles have wheels with spokes, the space shuttle had wheels with spokes. The space shuttle evolved out of a bicycle.

The main flaw is that we don't know that plants evolved before animal life, and the evidence suggests that animal life came before plants. A type of seaweed may precede animal life , but seaweed isn't really a plant. It's better to say photosynthesis came before
cellular respiration. But for what we relate to as being plant and animal life most likely evolved somewhat together.
"but seaweed isn't really a plant"

Really? What is it?
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98353 Aug 21, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, many fresh water species of today were results of being stranded as ocean dwellers as oceans shifted and receded.
From the flood.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#98354 Aug 21, 2013
bohart wrote:
Poor sucking my bone,...he gets angry when his superstitious belief of how life began is called out for the bullshit it is.
I hereby request evidence of how the first life came about using the scientific method.
Observable,
testable,
repeatable.
and please don't ask me to view a cartoon
Go find some rock 3.5 billion years old. Observe if it has early life.

No go find some rock 4 billion years old. Try and find any signs of life.

Note how the validity of evolution still remains unaffected.
bohart wrote:
You don't have it, then you've lied about your evidence
Booboo, why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing other people of lying?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#98355 Aug 21, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwin's claimed macro evolution which means one kind producing another kind.
Does it? WTF is a kind?
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Not bacteria evolving into bacteria, birds evolved in to birds and if the bird was a finch the NEW SPECIES is still a finch. insects evolving into insects and if it was an ant it's still an ant and if it was a fly its still a fly.
And this is where your "kind" definition falls down, since if bacteria can evolve into different species of bacteria, remember that bacteria represent an entire biological ORDER.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Turning on or off genes is nothing amazing.
But amazingly, birds have teeth.

Oh wait...
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
God put those genes there for animals or insect ect.
What God? Evidence please.

Oh wait - evidence doesn't matter since no evidence contradicts Goddidit.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
To adapt to changing environments. It's a little like an electrician wiring the house so you can turn lights on when it gets dark. It's called planning ahead. Intelligent design. Every time a species has been isolated you claim a new species evolves. The fact is EVERY time the DNA has gotten shorter NEVER new DNA just different switches turn on an off and other genes lost for ever because adaptation is no longer needed.
Plain incorrect. Sorry.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
As a result these "NEW" species are on the short road to extinction.
Sure. Even when their populations increase. I suppose everything is headed to extinction when one considers the sun's gonna get everything eventually, yeah.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Why do you observe these facts and still believe in macro evolution?
And you claim not to be religious.
Due to the evidence you are unable to address in favour of your caricature version of evolution.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#98356 Aug 21, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Well at least you capitalized God.
Just trying to be nice....while ripping your dogma to shreds .:-)

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#98357 Aug 21, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Land changes, gets flooded, and leaves aquatic animals stranded in lakes and ponds. Barring recent artificial introduction this is why you'll only get certain animals in certain places.
A new man made lake where fish suddenly appeared...

"There are fish appearing in these lakes as well. Fish eggs cling to the feet and legs of the herons. So as the birds shuttle between old and new lakes, the eggs fall off and hatch."

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/26/163723606/whats...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#98358 Aug 21, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you get from plants to animals?
Not by evolution, that's fer sure. Not the way it happened on Earth, anyway. You DID know that evolution doesn't propose this, right? You DO understand evolution, right? You DO know why this is, right? You HAVE learned all about evolution and will address the actual model rather than creationist fantasies of evolution, right?

No, of course not.

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#98359 Aug 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Nature uses nature to spread life. Take the Grey Herring (or the herring family) that thrive on fresh water fish and frogs ect. They carry a little of those eggs and maybe even very small minnows in their mouth as they fly from pond to pond or pond to lake. When they get there and shove their mouth in the water again some washes out in the water, result is very small minnows or eggs will be put in that water from the mouth of the herrings. I don't have a link for this but I have read about that and also of storms, tornadoes sucking fish and eggs, frogs and eggs out of lakes and ponds as they go over them and then carries them miles away sometimes before they fall back to earth and maybe they end up in a pond or lake that prior had no fish. Google raining frogs.
You got it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#98360 Aug 21, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
From the flood.
From many.

Not "The", as that never happened.

Otherwise none of us would be here to talk about it.

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#98361 Aug 21, 2013
The Dude wrote:
From many.
Not "The", as that never happened.
Otherwise none of us would be here to talk about it.
If the flood actually did happen, then wouldn't all the fresh water fish have died from exposure to salt water?

And how did all the marsupials know that after they got off the boat that they were suppose to go to Australia?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#98362 Aug 21, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not myths.
Of course they are myths.

How can you prove to me, and the world, that the earth is 10,000 years old or younger?
Using scientific evidence it can be PROVEN much older.

How can you prove to us that Adam and Eve were real?
Using scientific evidence it can be PROVEN they were NOT real.

How can you prove to us that Noah's flood was a real event?
Using scientific evidence Noah's flood can be PROVEN a myth.

How can you prove to us that the 'Tower of Babel' incident occurred?
Using scientific evidence it can be PROVEN a myth.

How can you prove to us that the Exodus happened.
Using scientific evidence it can be PROVEN a myth.

How can you prove to us that Moses was real and that he wrote the Pentateuch?
There is strong scientific evidence that he was not a real person. The evidence says that the Pentateuch was written by at least 3 or 4 different authors and at a much later date then 1400+- BC.

There are proven anachronisms in the Pentateuch.

These anomalies in the Old Testament lead us to believe that Abraham, Lot, and Moses (and others), were not real persons.

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
Poll Things that drive you crazy (Jan '10) 3 min Parden Pard 4,742
News Fight over gumbo spices leads to fatal stabbing... 4 min Emerald 2
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) (Dec '14) 6 min Parden Pard 2,202
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 19 min Phaerae 14,412
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 20 min Princess Hey 5,151
conversation using song lyrics (Aug '13) 23 min liam cul8r 1,784
News Bob Costas Makes a Weird, Racist, Un-Funny Comm... 23 min Go Blue Forever 4
Answer a question with a question 1 hr dragoon70056 180
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr harley honey 41,279
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 2 hr cathouse cowboy 12,045
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 hr TheJerseyDevil 165,053
More from around the web