Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 164331 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.

Since: Jul 10

Alpharetta, GA

#102365 Oct 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey!!
No fair using logic!
There is no true peer reviewed creation research. Creationists have invented their own "peer review". Stick around, sooner or later some creatard will link one of those hilarious articles.
Bad habit of mine. But you can bet the link will neither make sense nor will it avoid the topic of Evolution. If it weren't for the topic of Evolution most cretinists would be struck dumb(er)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102366 Oct 21, 2013
bohart wrote:
Here we go again with the magnificently stupid Dud!
Give me one example science has of life coming from a source other than existing life? We'll wait..........
Abiogenesis.

It's right there recorded in the rocks. 3.5-3.8 billion years ago we have the earliest forms of life. Preceding that we have none. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

No evidence at all whatsoever of life existing before this time. NO evidence at all whatsoever that your magic Jew even exists.

And remember you ALREADY violate your own rules by invoking your God in the first place -

1 - God is a living being. But we all have to be DEAD to get to be spirits like Him.

2 - God did NOT produce life via a natural process, but an ARTIFICIAL experiment which had NOTHING to do with life developing as it always does naturally from a pre-existing lifeform "after its kind". Same goes for every single species God ever created.

3 - God is eternal and immortal and therefore did NOT come from a previous lifeform. Therefore life does NOT ALWAYS require a previous lifeform.

You violate your OWN rules THREE TIMES.(or billions if you want to address each and every species individually)

WE violate your rules ONCE.

But uh, frankly we couldn't give a flying f ck about your rules. Neither does reality.(shrug)
bohart wrote:
and you still spout the same old lies about non living compounds being converted into life...Hey Fool! what is converting those compounds?.....that's right,..living beings. Not goo magic!
And what are living beings? That's right, a collection of chemical reactions. NOT magic. Magic is not my claim. I've never invoked it. You claim chemical reactions can create life all the time every day but 3.5 billion years ago Jewish magic was necessary for the first one. YOU claim Godmagic made life, the universe and everything. All I do is point out that there is no reason to presume that your magic wizard was even necessary, and if it is, the same premise breaks your own rules. Multiple times over.
bohart wrote:
Keep up the lying, it's all you have.
But unlike you I haven't had to lie here, have I?

Just because I broke "BOHART'S COMMANDMENT" doesn't mean I have lied. It means YOU have because you broke it three times. AND you never address my posts directly and deal with the problems of your own arguments.

Your willful ignorance is not our problem.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102367 Oct 21, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Again with the lies, isn't abiogenesis man's theory of how life self assembled on it's own? uh yeah it is.
So your either lying, or you just don't know what the hell your talking about,..Oh! it's both. Go lay down
I'm not lying. Go back again and look at the post you responded to. Not only does it NOT address what I said, it STILL misrepresents abiogenesis AND is a continuation of YOU placing your own limits on the Almighty.

So show me evidence that God gives a f ck what you think.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102368 Oct 21, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. An existing 'fact' can be included among other pieces of unproven facts linked together when one is trying to prove a case based on circumstantial evidence because not enough actual facts exist. Like with the big bang theory. Like with the theory of dark matter etc.
I see you still have no idea what a scientific theory is. If you have a better one then please present a viable alternative theory that does a better job of predicting cosmic background radiation than the Big Bang. If you have a better one then please present a viable alternative theory that does a better job of predicting the positions and gravitational effects of astronomical phenomena better than Dark Matter.

Meh, who am I kidding, you're a Von-Daniken fan.

:-/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102369 Oct 21, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I did say the earth has the potential to globally flood itself. I never specified the when.
I did. That's the difference.

Global flood is pretty pointless if it happens billions of years before Noah allegedly existed, right?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102370 Oct 21, 2013
bohart wrote:
Total lie! " we know that chemicals and compounds can assemble into living organisms?" life is testament to that! you are a nut! there's ZERO evidence for that! You are bathed in denial, and will tell any lie to defend your faith.
In that case then you must not be alive.

Since you ARE essentially just a walking talking bag of chemical reactions, how do you explain this?

You don't. You rant and call OTHER people liars because YOU are ignorant.
bohart wrote:
You have surpassed the idiot sucking bone for lies and stupidity,...so the key to building life has been discovered eh? What a fool! perhaps you should let the rest of the world in on your secret , you are the only one who knows it.
you worshiper you are?
in your frenzy to defend the faith you are losing coherence
You lost coherence years ago.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102371 Oct 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Let’s do a little comparison.
The bible says God created life.
Science says life created itself.
Actually science says life developed about three and a half billion years ago. It suspects that chemical forces gave rise to life, however it's still open to the possibility of aliens, invisible magic Jew wizards, or another currently unknown fourth option.

“Ditat Deus”

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#102372 Oct 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I will answer you last claim first. You are wrong. There is plenty of evidence today that suggests life can rise naturally. There have been many creatard claims that have been proven wrong over the years. Would you care to be specific?
And what do you mean by "creation through evolution"? If you truly believe that then you believe in a common ancestor. And since you dispute a common ancestor it is fairly clear that you are lying.
Do you accept that we share a common ancestor with other apes? With other mammals? With other vertebrates? In other words do you draw an artificial line somewhere?
I've never disputed the common ancestor, I've only commented on the fact that there is no evidence of it's existence.

No, there is no evidence that life can create itself.

“Ditat Deus”

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#102373 Oct 21, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>creation through evolution?!? that makes no sense...
all the evidence we have suggests there is no creator. all the creators created by religious cults have been proven false and there is not one teensy shred of evidence to suggest any god, gods or goddesses ever existed...
your cult lied to you...again...
All the evidence we have today tells us that life cannot create itself.

Since we know life cannot spontaneously occur, a creator of some sort is necessary.

“Ditat Deus”

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#102374 Oct 21, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
a fingerprint at the scene of a crime inot circumstantial evidence, it is direct proof that that person was at that crime scene..
Sigh...

That IS circumstantial evidence, dude.

"evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn... evidence

“Ditat Deus”

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#102375 Oct 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And there is nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence. Most evidence is circumstantial. In fact circumstantial evidence is often much stronger than direct evidence. An "eye witness" can give direct evidence, and they have a much higher failure rate than forensic evidence which is almost totally circumstantial.
The reason that most circumstantial evidence is stronger than direct evidence is that bias can very easily enter into direct evidence.
Correct.

“Ditat Deus”

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#102376 Oct 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
If that is the case why do you dispute the concept of a common ancestor? You can't have it both ways. You are lying in one of these cases.
I have not disputed it, only the lack of evidence for it.

“Ditat Deus”

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#102377 Oct 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is being pedantic now?
I am, this time.

It DOES say serpent, not snake.

“Ditat Deus”

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#102378 Oct 21, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Because before it was a snake it had legs, and was described as a 'serpent'. Ergo it is not unreasonable to assume it was a reptilian species with legs, of the order Squamata.
But of course it could have been a deep-voiced wind instrument.(shrug)
God cursed the serpent, yes?

Into what? A snake.

What sense would it make to curse a snake to become a snake?

O_o

“Ditat Deus”

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#102379 Oct 21, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
So, a talking SERPENT.
Yeah.
That's much more logical.
It all makes sense now.
Look up the word , man.

It has at least six definitions.

Only one of which is snake.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#102380 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
All the evidence we have today tells us that life cannot create itself.
Since we know life cannot spontaneously occur, a creator of some sort is necessary.
what evidence is that? please be specific, buck...

“Ditat Deus”

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#102381 Oct 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Repeating an error does not make it true.
There is evidence for abiogenesis. There is not enough evidence to lift it up above the level of hypothesis yet. In fact there have been thousands of successful experiments giving evidence for abiogenesis since the Miller, Urey experiment. Back at that time creatards were claiming that the building blocks of life, amino acids, could not form naturally. The Miller Urey experiment showed that they were wrong.
Lol, the Urey-Miller....

That was natural, huh?

“Ditat Deus”

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#102382 Oct 21, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>any talking serpents in the real world? nope...not one..
My ex is a serpent.

Obama's a serpent. Most politicians are.

Capisce?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#102383 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Sigh...
That IS circumstantial evidence, dude.
"evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn... evidence
no, you fool it is not. you, like your partner replay, are just too stupid to even ask the right question to get the info you want. this would explain your ignorance on almost every subject you post on.

a fingerprint is direct evidence of that person being at the crime scene.

is it direct evidence they committed a crime at that scene? no it is not, but you cannot think logically enough to separate those two concepts....

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#102384 Oct 21, 2013
The scientifically illiterate will attempt to seize upon this to denegrate science and specifically, evolution. In contrast, the rest of us will understand it is not only exceedingly HONEST of science, but it to suggest that the branching of the Neanderthal and modern human (Cro Magnon?) being pushed back further -- if you accept the findings below -- is INCREASING our knowledge of early man.

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-hominin-ancestor...

No known hominin is ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans, research says
October 21st, 2013 in Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils

Study: No known hominin is ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans.

The search for a common ancestor linking modern humans with the Neanderthals who lived in Europe thousands of years ago has been a compelling subject for research. But a new study suggests the quest isn't nearly complete.

The researchers, using quantitative methods focused on the shape of dental fossils, find that none of the usual suspects fits the expected profile of an ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans. They also present evidence that the lines that led to Neanderthals and modern humans diverged nearly 1 million years ago, much earlier than studies based on molecular evidence have suggested.

The study, which will be published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was carried out by an international team of scholars from The George Washington University, Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research in Austria, Indiana University and Atapuerca Research Team in Spain.

"Our results call attention to the strong discrepancies between molecular and paleontological estimates of the divergence time between Neanderthals and modern humans," said Aida Gómez-Robles, lead author of the paper and a postdoctoral scientist at the Center for the Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology of The George Washington University. "These discrepancies cannot be simply ignored, but they have to be somehow reconciled."

P. David Polly, professor in the Department of Geological Sciences in the IU Bloomington College of Arts and Sciences, is a co-author of the study. Other co-authors are Spanish researchers José María Bermúdez de Castro, Juan-Luis Arsuaga and Eudald Carbonell, co-directors of the excavations at Atapuerca sites. The study resulted from a collaboration that developed when Gómez-Robles spent a semester at IU studying with Polly while she was a graduate student at the National Research Centre for Human Evolution and at the University of Granada, both in Spain. It also makes use of statistical methods developed by IU Bloomington biologist Emilia Martins.

The article, "No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans," relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins—humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.

The study also finds that the potential human ancestors discovered in Europe are morphologically closer to Neanderthals than to modern humans. This suggests the line leading to Neanderthals arose around 1 million years ago and the divergence of humans took place much earlier than previously thought. Other studies have placed the divergence around 350,000 years ago.

"The study tells us that there are still new hominin finds waiting to be made," Polly said. "Fossil finds from about 1 million years ago in Africa deserve close scrutiny as the possible ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans."

<snipped for brevity due to Topix character limitations. See link above for complete article.>

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
Add a Word, Drop a Panty game 10 min andet1987 333
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 14 min wichita-rick 163,038
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 15 min andet1987 31,983
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 18 min andet1987 4,557
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 23 min andet1987 28,895
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 34 min andet1987 8,676
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 40 min whatimeisit 56,896
Please STOP judging me negatively.. 1 hr Crazy Jae 17
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 3 hr Brandiiiiiiii 4,587
More from around the web