Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221438 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.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#105085 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
To bad you are too stupid to even see that we were talking about hypothesis. Swing and a miss but thanks for playing. So STFU yourself.
Go do something you have never done before,,, make a difference in something.
Yeah... I just noticed I posted it in the wrong place. My apologies.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#105086 Nov 6, 2013
TerryL wrote:
Damn... wrong place for that last post. Stupid windows
BAHAHAHAHA Trying to blame the computer. You had to click reply and type your comment. What an idiot. LMAO

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#105087 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
BAHAHAHAHA Trying to blame the computer. You had to click reply and type your comment. What an idiot. LMAO
Nope... just got confused as to which reality denying idiot I was posting to. Since you guys are all pretty much the same it's an easy mistake to make.

And I did apologize for it... not that you're familiar with that type of behavior

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#105088 Nov 6, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Scientists have had lab experiments running for millions and millions of years?
can i visit this lab?
It won't do you any good. Perhaps you could get the first species from the 3 domains of life to send some DNA to your researchers through a time loop so they don't have to keep adding to the great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past....

Review Article Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution

Top of pageAbstractEvolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. The connection between these processes is also a major source of conflict between science and religious belief.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n72...

I prefer to rest my opinion on data, as flawed and biased as it is, still supports a creationist paradigm. IOW man and ape do not have the same molecular machinery and therefore do not show continuity and are of different genesis/creative events.

"In PNAS, the team reports cloning the human and chimpanzee hydroxylase cDNAs, and identifying a mutation in the coding region of the human cDNA that regulates hydroxylase activity. The same gene in apes codes for a hydroxylase enzyme which adds this atom to the sialic acid molecule, but due to a mutation at some point in human evolution, the human gene lacks this coding section, accounting for the structural difference in the molecule."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#105090 Nov 6, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>For your EDUCATION!:
Scientific theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For a general treatment of theories, see theory.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.[5]
Now STFU!
I suppose over a century of claimed empirical evidence for human knuckle walking ancestry falsified on the back of one single fossil, Ardi, is reflective of TOEs credibility. Using the same fossils to support 2 scenarios is truly an amazing work. Well done!

IOW, TOE has NO predictive ability and is virtually unfalsifiable. However, having a documented creative account gives a scenario to predict, validate or falsify that TOE is lacking.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105091 Nov 6, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
It won't do you any good. Perhaps you could get the first species from the 3 domains of life to send some DNA to your researchers through a time loop so they don't have to keep adding to the great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past....
Review Article Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution
Top of pageAbstractEvolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. The connection between these processes is also a major source of conflict between science and religious belief.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n72...
I prefer to rest my opinion on data, as flawed and biased as it is, still supports a creationist paradigm. IOW man and ape do not have the same molecular machinery and therefore do not show continuity and are of different genesis/creative events.
"In PNAS, the team reports cloning the human and chimpanzee hydroxylase cDNAs, and identifying a mutation in the coding region of the human cDNA that regulates hydroxylase activity. The same gene in apes codes for a hydroxylase enzyme which adds this atom to the sialic acid molecule, but due to a mutation at some point in human evolution, the human gene lacks this coding section, accounting for the structural difference in the molecule."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/...
what does that have to do at all with me pointing out clearly that your claim had no rational basis?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105092 Nov 6, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
It won't do you any good. Perhaps you could get the first species from the 3 domains of life to send some DNA to your researchers through a time loop so they don't have to keep adding to the great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past....
Review Article Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution
Top of pageAbstractEvolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. The connection between these processes is also a major source of conflict between science and religious belief.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n72...
I prefer to rest my opinion on data, as flawed and biased as it is, still supports a creationist paradigm. IOW man and ape do not have the same molecular machinery and therefore do not show continuity and are of different genesis/creative events.
"In PNAS, the team reports cloning the human and chimpanzee hydroxylase cDNAs, and identifying a mutation in the coding region of the human cDNA that regulates hydroxylase activity. The same gene in apes codes for a hydroxylase enzyme which adds this atom to the sialic acid molecule, but due to a mutation at some point in human evolution, the human gene lacks this coding section, accounting for the structural difference in the molecule."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/...
From your Science Daily link:

The differences between humans and apes are physically and functionally apparent, but genetically humans are extraordinarily similar to apes, especially to the chimpanzee and the bonobo (pygmy chimpanzee).

"We are so close in our DNA that if you were a visitor from another planet analyzing DNA samples of earth species, you would assume that there were greater differences between chimpanzees and gorillas than between chimpanzees and humans," said Ajit Varki, M.D., Professor of Medicine with the UCSD Cancer Center and Divisions of Hematology-Oncology and Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of California, San Diego. Varki is senior author of two new papers describing a genetic mutation at the root of a structural difference between an important cell surface molecule common in humans and chimpanzees.

Seems your own link disagrees with you.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#105093 Nov 6, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>Nope... just got confused as to which reality denying idiot I was posting to. Since you guys are all pretty much the same it's an easy mistake to make.
And I did apologize for it... not that you're familiar with that type of behavior
No biggie. We all are idiots sometimes. And we will all get crap for it. So it's cool. And thank you.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105094 Nov 6, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose over a century of claimed empirical evidence for human knuckle walking
Where do you come up with this BS?

Hominids have been known to be bipedal going back several million years, for decades. What "claimed empirical evidence for human knuckle walking"?

However, human knuckle-headedness is clearly alive and well in your continual declarations that the evidence for evolution is really evidence against it. Time for your meds.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105095 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
When it comes to science the evolutionist say the glass is half full whereas creationists say the glass is half empty. When it comes to God the creationist say the glass is half full whereas evolutionists say the glass is half empty, well pretty much empty.
There is plenty of evidence in just about everything science has studied either in a hypothesis form or a theory form. Does it mean it is correct? No it doesnít. It means it is correct in what we believe at this time but can change at any moment if something comes along different. There is so much we have no clue about, so much that we donít even know of, so much we will never know.
How we choose to classify the glass is only a choice. I see science as science, a glass with water in it. I see God as God, a glass with water in it. Now some can tell me God say it is half full and some can tell me science says it is half empty. Until someone can show me absolute reason and fact that the level of water means more than how I view it, it will remain just a glass with water in it.
The difference is that our water gave you your computer. Your water gave you a lot of nothing to talk about.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105096 Nov 6, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, I've googled all the articles on ,origin of life and none are as optimistic as you. You are wrong on many fronts in your statement, your..( we have details of the early stages of this process?) really! no one else seems to, it's all unsupported guesses, the ..(no fundamental issues that require supernatural forces at work instead of basic natural forces?) It's all problems of a fundamental nature! Is it reasonable to assume? that a collection of chemicals came to life! You may argue it , but there's nothing scientific or reasonable about it. An astrobiologist from the University of Arizona last year stated that there isn't even a concensus on how to even approach the problem of creating life or how it began
Scientific American had an article about the subject and spoke of an incomprehensible gulf between life and non life, where hypothesis and theories crash and burn.
So there's nothing rational about chemicals coming to life, yet there you sit, typing away despite your claim to the contrary. Funny that.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105097 Nov 6, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoa! I thought you said abiogenesis could have been caused by a God or not!
That's not the definition!
You were wrong.
Then gravity could not have been caused by God. After all, it's not in the definition.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105098 Nov 6, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep! here it is Abiogenesis could have been caused by God? That's not the definition of abiogenesis,...it's natural processes,..so you didn't know the meaning of the word?
Of course we do. No matter how often we explain the word to you you STILL get it wrong. I mean, you keep on referring to "inanimate" matter all the time, even though it has nothing to do with the subject, and you've been corrected hundreds of times over.

The only rational conclusion can be is that you're willfully ignorant.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105099 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You only see it as me bitching about science because you worship science. Same as the creationist see it as you bitching about God because they worship god.
We don't worship science. Science is simply attacked by the ignorant part of the population.
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is not a theory. It hasn't passed the guessing, assuming stages.
Theories haven't passed the "assuming" stages as they also require axioms. I see you're still playing this disingenuous word game of yours because you're unable to level a valid criticism towards science you dislike for theological reasons.

So what happened to your little numbers game? You know, the one that led to the logical conclusion that your own position violated its OWN axioms?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105100 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Show your evidence or STFU. You are like a broken record just repeating the same crap.
Irony meter go boom.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105101 Nov 6, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry,..it's hard to understand what you don't know.
That's because you're no educated.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105102 Nov 6, 2013
bohart wrote:
Here you are, being so stupid that you remind me of subby. If God starts the universe and begins life it's called...wait for it .creation!
If the universe came into existence on it's own , and a primordial soup coalesced on it's own and came to life , that's abiogenesis.
Webster has a fine dictionary, check it out.
The beginning of the universe is called abiogenesis? Yep, once again you demonstrate that you don't know the definition of abiogenesis.
bohart wrote:
You are just so hostile to the very concept of God, you will believe any and all things , no matter how stupid.
On the contrary, you are hostile to the concept of God when it doesn't fall within your convenience. Literally everything in and out of the universe is magic by God, since nothing natural exists. All because you decided that God can't do things you don't like.

Personally I don't think an all-powerful universe-creating Creator gives a f ck what you think.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105103 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to make facts first and back them up. You never do. You just run your mouth all the time.
I bet science would like to examine you. A walking talking dic with ears. Now that is something to investigate. lol
You are not interested in facts. When they are presented you counter with word games.

Remember, God is watching you...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105104 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The bible is not evidence. That has been made clear many many times. Oh wait!! You all mean the creationists can't use it as evidence but you all can. I see. Carry od idiot.
Precisely. This is because the Bible supports our position and not yours. Funny how evidence works, ain't it?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105105 Nov 6, 2013
bohart wrote:
He is really a idiot on a megaton scale.
I see. That's why you come here every day and avoid everyone's posts and getting every single scientific concept wrong, even after they are explained to you.

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
Moderators Pulling Posts 45 min Beautiful Black M... 10
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 54 min Chilli J 4,014
Let's play "follow the word" (Jun '08) 1 hr Princess Hey 49,320
Post "any three words" (Sep '12) 1 hr Princess Hey 4,116
Memorable Movie Scenes. 1 hr T Bone 352
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr wichita-rick 217,003
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 2 hr KellyP in Jersey 46,675
News Sea lion grabs girl, pulls her into water 2 hr Sublime1 17
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 3 hr honeymylove 2,518
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 4 hr Denny CranesPlace 75,162
More from around the web