Evolution vs. Creation

There are 163581 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105628 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't prove...
Once again, you show just how shallow your scientific education is.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105629 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't prove abiogeneis so I guess by your reasoning TOE has been falsified. Go back to bed idiot. These lame old penchants only show how stupid, ignorant and hypocritical you evos are.
When you reckon you have grown a brain big enough to find some empirical research that shows how on earth a genome can evolve for billions of years without extinction then you may get some of your credibility back.
The same old lame crap always comes from evos in the end.
if not abiogenesis, where did life originally come from?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105630 Nov 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You still got it wrong. No mistaking that.
<quoted text>
As noted before, it is downright hysterical that you would use a peer-reviewed paper to show that peer-reviewed papers are mostly wrong.
Has it ever crossed your tiny, little mind that this paper is likely wrong as well?
No. I didn't think so.
It is your tiny little brain that can't come up with one shred of empirical evidence that demonstrates the genome can 'evolve' for billions of years. That, you dim witted evo, is the reason why you lot will now spam and troll adnauseum for as long as you can post.

However, there is tons of evidence that the genome cannot 'evolve' for billions years without going into extinction. You lot require many non plausible scenarios to hand wave away evidence for the creationist paradigm.

We don't need your stupid flawed research because anyone can see in current breeding methods, variation is limited. That would be first hand observed empirical evidence. You will never breed a dog as large as an elephant, no matter how hard they try and suggest a microbe can evolve into an elephant.

Using your own empirical evidence that you lot are always squacking about and then hitting you over the head with it, is just more of the fun to have here here.

So suck it up and keep fluffing your feathers and ridiculing and looking like an evo fool. That is the entertainment I am here for.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105631 Nov 11, 2013
..and when you evos are done looking like clowns you best go look for this flawed research of yours because that is the best you can come up with and still have none to present.

This will not go away with your hiding behind philosphy. Where is all this empirical evidence of yours? Sitting in the trash can of evolutionary delusions past.

The data aligns with a documented creationist account better than an evolutionary paradigm. You evos can only play the spam puppet as you know there is NO empirical evidence that suggest the genome can evolve for billion of years without extinction. So blabb on and stroke your ego all you want and still you are only gob smacked evos.

Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.

Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/ ...

Some genetic phenomena originate as mutations that are initially advantageous but decline in fitness until they become distinctly deleterious. Here I give the condition for a mutation–selection balance to form and describe some of the properties of the resulting equilibrium population. A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...

As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.

http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...

These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...

In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition

http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...

Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. Life must be much younger than the evolutionary model suggests. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist pardigm and gives evolutionists headaches.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105632 Nov 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, you show just how shallow your scientific education is.
Another idiot, researchless reply from a gob smacked evo trying to save face on forum and TOE from zombification.

Then demonstrate unlimited adaptability is posssible, seeing as you lot can't 'prove' anything. LOL!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105633 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
It is your tiny little brain that can't come up with one shred of empirical evidence that demonstrates the genome can 'evolve' for billions of years. That, you dim witted evo, is the reason why you lot will now spam and troll adnauseum for as long as you can post.
However, there is tons of evidence that the genome cannot 'evolve' for billions years without going into extinction. You lot require many non plausible scenarios to hand wave away evidence for the creationist paradigm.
We don't need your stupid flawed research because anyone can see in current breeding methods, variation is limited. That would be first hand observed empirical evidence. You will never breed a dog as large as an elephant, no matter how hard they try and suggest a microbe can evolve into an elephant.
Using your own empirical evidence that you lot are always squacking about and then hitting you over the head with it, is just more of the fun to have here here.
So suck it up and keep fluffing your feathers and ridiculing and looking like an evo fool. That is the entertainment I am here for.
{yawn}

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105634 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
..and when you evos are done looking like clowns you best go look for this flawed research of yours because that is the best you can come up with and still have none to present.
This will not go away with your hiding behind philosphy. Where is all this empirical evidence of yours? Sitting in the trash can of evolutionary delusions past.
The data aligns with a documented creationist account better than an evolutionary paradigm. You evos can only play the spam puppet as you know there is NO empirical evidence that suggest the genome can evolve for billion of years without extinction. So blabb on and stroke your ego all you want and still you are only gob smacked evos.
Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/ ...
Some genetic phenomena originate as mutations that are initially advantageous but decline in fitness until they become distinctly deleterious. Here I give the condition for a mutation–selection balance to form and describe some of the properties of the resulting equilibrium population. A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...
As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...
These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...
Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. Life must be much younger than the evolutionary model suggests. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist pardigm and gives evolutionists headaches.
Speaking of spamming, little troll, how many times are you going to post this same bullshit?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105635 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Another idiot, researchless reply from a gob smacked evo trying to save face on forum and TOE from zombification.
Then demonstrate unlimited adaptability is posssible, seeing as you lot can't 'prove' anything. LOL!
Researchless? You mean like the two papers that I just posted for you? That you ignored because you were preoccupied with wetting your pants?

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105636 Nov 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure that Erectus knuckle walked all the time, but there certainly did in some situations. However Neanderthal were completely bipedal
I recently spent a few days at la roque st christophe examining the grave and bones of a 55 thousand year old Neanderthal site, no sign of the stooped posture required for knuckle walking.
That Maz eh? Go figure.

Erectus was a runner, no knuckle dragger, they could outrun us.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105637 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, some of us work, you unemployed no hoper.....
I'd say you are the big suck tryng to get your jollies for the day by demonstrating you're an idiot. That proves you, for sure, have no hope of refuting me scientifically, you spam bot. Keep fluffing your feathers because creos can see the spam dance you evos put on when defeated.
The data aligns with a documented creationist account better than an evolutionary paradigm. You evos can only play the spam puppet as you know there is NO empirical evidence that suggest the genome can evolve for billion of years without extinction. So blabb on and stroke your ego all you want and still you are only gob smacked evos.
Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/ ...
Some genetic phenomena originate as mutations that are initially advantageous but decline in fitness until they become distinctly deleterious. Here I give the condition for a mutation–selection balance to form and describe some of the properties of the resulting equilibrium population. A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...
As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...
These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...
Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. Life must be much younger than the evolutionary model suggests. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist pardigm and gives evolutionists headaches.
You have deluded yourself beyond all possible hope of understanding.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105638 Nov 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You still got it wrong. No mistaking that.
<quoted text>
As noted before, it is downright hysterical that you would use a peer-reviewed paper to show that peer-reviewed papers are mostly wrong.
Has it ever crossed your tiny, little mind that this paper is likely wrong as well?
No. I didn't think so.
The funniest part is starting out your hypothesis using peer reviewed papers ...with a paper.. that says...
the papers are probably wrong.
Shoot yourself in the foot then run for the car. lol

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105639 Nov 11, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Erectus was a runner, no knuckle dragger, they could outrun us.
and weren't neandertals bigger, stronger and better adapted physically to the environment of europe at that time than erectus?

but the bigger brains of erectus won out in a biological blink of an eye.

just like the bigger brains of you folks are winning out over mazhair in the blink of an eye...

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105640 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
It is your tiny little brain that can't come up with one shred of empirical evidence that demonstrates the genome can 'evolve' for billions of years. That, you dim witted evo, is the reason why you lot will now spam and troll adnauseum for as long as you can post.
However, there is tons of evidence that the genome cannot 'evolve' for billions years without going into extinction. You lot require many non plausible scenarios to hand wave away evidence for the creationist paradigm.
We don't need your stupid flawed research because anyone can see in current breeding methods, variation is limited. That would be first hand observed empirical evidence. You will never breed a dog as large as an elephant, no matter how hard they try and suggest a microbe can evolve into an elephant.
Using your own empirical evidence that you lot are always squacking about and then hitting you over the head with it, is just more of the fun to have here here.
So suck it up and keep fluffing your feathers and ridiculing and looking like an evo fool. That is the entertainment I am here for.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/...

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/ast...

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...



http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplaine...

We can provide you with that in spades.
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#105641 Nov 11, 2013
Tell us about the science of the talking snake.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Another idiot, researchless reply from a gob smacked evo trying to save face on forum and TOE from zombification.
Then demonstrate unlimited adaptability is posssible, seeing as you lot can't 'prove' anything. LOL!

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#105642 Nov 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sanford was refuted 28 days before his book was officially released to the public. The first ever incident of a
"scientific" thesis being refuted before it was proposed.
I see you are still spamming pseudoscientific crap culled from creotard sites.
Worthless.
Sisyphus? very appropriate

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105643 Nov 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
SBT, bones decompose over time. Populations do not follow Kent Hovinds simple exponential curve.
If Ayala tried to make his claim 40 years ago he was wrong then. The only reason that our population made be "devolving" is because now we can takes care of the genetically inferior.
In the past natural selection culled the human race, stopping "devolution". We don't have that now, we have evolution.
So fossils deteriorate in such a short amount of time? What about the massive number of fossil remains your side date as multiple MY's old? Ayala was right. Culled the human race? So your "cave men" were cannibals. In the Karoo in SA they estimate the fossil deposit at 200,000 sq miles ranging from 2000-5000ft deep. An average fossil/sq meter cal was done giving an estimate of 150,000,000+ fossils exposed on the surface alone. As no bottom to top evolution is observed, these appear deposited in one watery event and are collectible today. So that is the math. Use math to calculate the number of people who lived on earth with the most conservative factor and you get around 10X26th power. The universe would not contain the volume of bones.
Again uniform measurements fail you.

http://www.rae.org/pdf/800Billion.pdf
http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/the-quest...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105644 Nov 11, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
So fossils deteriorate in such a short amount of time? What about the massive number of fossil remains your side date as multiple MY's old? Ayala was right. Culled the human race? So your "cave men" were cannibals. In the Karoo in SA they estimate the fossil deposit at 200,000 sq miles ranging from 2000-5000ft deep. An average fossil/sq meter cal was done giving an estimate of 150,000,000+ fossils exposed on the surface alone. As no bottom to top evolution is observed, these appear deposited in one watery event and are collectible today. So that is the math. Use math to calculate the number of people who lived on earth with the most conservative factor and you get around 10X26th power. The universe would not contain the volume of bones.
Again uniform measurements fail you.
http://www.rae.org/pdf/800Billion.pdf
http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/the-quest...
My oh my, you are quite the moron today. Very few bones become fossils. For land based animals it is incredibly small, less that one out of a million on average. Perhaps even less than one out of a billion.

Massive fail on your part. And please, don't make the incredibly idiotic mistake of comparing fossils from sea life to fossils form land life.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105645 Nov 11, 2013
I also see that you could not find any valid sources for your links. In case you didn't know both of your sources come from creatard sites and therefore are not valid.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105646 Nov 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't seen any cartoon. All I have seen is the fossil evidence showing intermediate stages.
And contrary to your claim of a predetermined end, each of those stages was adaptive in its own right. Meaning the process was not directed towards creating the 3-boned middle ear but could have stopped at any point in the transformation if there was no adaptive advantage to further change.
This is the mistake you guys always make. Whenever you launch your silly IC claims, you always forget that intermediate stages are only intermediate in hindsight and that these adaptations may have had completely different functions at any point in the past.
The Corti is a soft tissue organ and not expected to be found in 200 million year old fossils under normal circumstances so we have no record of its appearance and development. No biologist would assume it showed up in its current state from the beginning.
But luckily we DO have the evidence of the bone assembly changing gradually from reptilian to mammalian. In fossils that are simultaneously making other changes to the skeleton in accordance with that same transformation.
Evolution explains that. What is your alternative? A succession of "created" species that just happen to match evolutionary expectations, just happened to appear in the fossil record at the right times? Not just for the middle ear of mammals, but for all the transformations of life so far. Where are the enormous number of fossils that would predate any possible evolutionary antecedent if evolution had not been the driving force?

Sorry, you have 1 bone to 3 bone, no 2 bone ear transition animals. and their is a pile of conflict in the lit over these hopefuls. The simplistic approach of saying it and having is a big diff. Take a chihuahua and great dane dog forms, one may choose among skeletons, line them up and claim evolution was at work, but no, a dog is a dog and the pure genetic information in the primal created dog kind,(although God was not limited to create one), allowed broad variation and adaptation, but that's not evolution. The DNA and concordant operable work together bones and organs are not so simplistically evolved, they require an end-game plan designed by the Almighty through DNA information and must be reconciled.

We know tens of thousands of creatures have gone extinct, many in recent years. A Fossil deposit may hold a variety of kinds dieing together in a catastrophic event but are found to be utterly unrelated to each other in taxonomy in the beds. When a big picture is taken in a fossil bed evolution is nowhere to be found, but evo claims support from the fossil record as paleontologists line up those that seem similar in homology from different sites, but they are mistaken. The quote I referenced mentions that actual appearance and functions are very difficult to determine from bones. With so many creatures now extinct and no new one's forming, things are proved to be running down, not up. This is what the bible teaches, creation is over.

In Oregon for instance, one localized deposit contains mice, opossums and lemurs, all buried at the same time. As these species represent our common decent ancestors and no between kinds are found, I call this Intermediates Lost, because there never were any!

http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/the-quest...

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105647 Nov 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
I also see that you could not find any valid sources for your links. In case you didn't know both of your sources come from creatard sites and therefore are not valid.
See the Pic of the Karoo? and there are a pile of references in those links. But pretend like the Karoo doesn't exist, all 200,000 sq miles of it.(Specially never let that place get into a HS textbook, like a proton motor, the kids may get confused, or think your side is wrong). The sources are valid from licensed professionals that have every right to print their findings and summaries.

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
4 Word Game (Use Same Letter) 4 min andet1987 685
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) 6 min andet1987 1,767
3 Word Sentence (each word, one syllable only) 9 min andet1987 371
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 10 min I Am No One_ 162,688
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 11 min Jennifer Renee 11,312
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 11 min Princess Hey 8,274
News Duke professor: Blacks riot because they're laz... 12 min Big Knob 197
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 25 min Hoosier Hillbilly 40,604
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 41 min DILF 555
motorcycle traveling stories 1 hr Ferretman 740
Things that make life eaiser... 1 hr Go Blue Forever 562
More from around the web