Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222919 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.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#105697 Nov 12, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Likewise.
Good to see that you agree that you also think you have a sick personality.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#105698 Nov 12, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
My stand on the English language is that, it should have an international board that regulates the use of English language like French( France), with its headquarters in England.
Why should there be an international board to dictate the use of English? Like any other language itís free.

I think there should be an international board to dictate the use of charles idemi

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105699 Nov 12, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I heard Jesus *DID* swat a mosquito.
But then he raised it from the dead and said: "Go and sting no more".
The Book of Orkin, I think.
z

And the mozzie said unto Jesus, hast thou raised me up from the dead just so that I might starve?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105700 Nov 12, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Humans hardly forgives. But as a child of God, i have apologised from my heart, whether you accept it or not, is not my concern, my concern is to God.
Weak. Very weak.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105701 Nov 12, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I know erectus walked upright, generally. I have doubt though as to whether they walked upright all the time. Given the skeletal structure and brain case size I do have doubts that they could retain balance under all conditions. And of course convenience also comes into play.
No, the skeletal structure is as determinately erect as ours and creatures with far smaller brains than ours or theirs show extraordinary feats of balance and coordination.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#105702 Nov 12, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It should also be noted that the wall of a H. erectus femur was about twice as thick as that of modern Homo sapiens. This would have added strength of running over the savanna.
http://web.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/origins/ho...
I saw a documentary that explored erectus leg muscle connections to their legs compare to an sapiens olympic runner. There are physical differences that happen when a persons leg muscles are trained and built up from running for many years. There was a similarity between theirs and our best runners.
Yup Iíve examined (briefly) the skeleton of H.Erectus, which is why I believe that in some situations they had to crouch and use all fours. In some situations modern humans do also need to adopt this technique, balance, scrambling up hills etc.

Thanks for the link, although it does not confirm my belief is does highlight the points that lead me to believe that H.E. sometimes used their knuckles but also aspects that oppose the idea to some extent, increased leg length etc. I found the link to Climatic Adaptations and Hominid Evolution very interesting.

Not seen that documentary, there was a recent on about fossilised Australian aborigine footprints of a running man that showed he was much faster than the fasted modern human.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#105703 Nov 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the skeletal structure is as determinately erect as ours and creatures with far smaller brains than ours or theirs show extraordinary feats of balance and coordination.
Modern humans sometimes have to uses their hands for balance, particularly in unusual situations.

Smaller brained creatures with excellent balance usually have smaller, lighter skeletons.

I am not saying that H.E. had poor balance but I am saying that it must have been relative to their size (similar to us) and weight (in all probability heavier than us) with a smaller brain capacity.

It could however have been that balance were expanded in place of other skills that require relatively large amounts brain functionality, for example language.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#105704 Nov 12, 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...
oh, yay, sbt is back.

There have been no human fossil deposits found. There have been no animal fossil deposits found. Ans since this "flood" was less than 10k years ago, these "deposits" would have been pretty superficial.

Please don't start this cycle of BS again. We've discussed this again and again.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#105705 Nov 12, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You are indeed the stupid. If you can not answer the question, then your claims are wrong. Simple. English started in England, period.
Doink!

Charles, OK - giving you the benefit of the doubt, what exactly is your point?

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#105706 Nov 12, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> First and foremost, unlike some others here, do you accept that?
Back to your question. Despite the death of Faraday, his name is still ringing on electricity, has the owner.
Doink!

Charles, really, stop while you're ahead. Out of curiosity, where are you from?(If you say England, I'll scream) I ask this because there may be a language issue here, maybe you're expressing yourself in a language that's not native to you and therefore are erroneously appearing to quite limited in thought. This I would understand. For this is the only reason you could possibly associate Faraday as the "owner" of electricity. Certainly Faraday had a great influence in both electrical and chemical fields. As an electrical engineer, I have the utmost respect for this man, and would give my left testicle (albeit unwillingly) to have an opportunity to sit down for an afternoon beer with this man just to shoot the sh!t, but you can't possibly believe in any way shape of form that he was responsible for electricity being what it is today, better yet having 'ownership'. Seriously Dude, WTF?

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#105707 Nov 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are correct, what are the consequences?
If you are wrong, what are the consequnces?
Is there any actual point to this discussion, any practical consequence at all that depend on the outcome?
NO
That makes it an utter waste of time. You might as well be arguing about whether Jesus ever swatted a mosquito.
Can a' worms dude...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105708 Nov 12, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Modern humans sometimes have to uses their hands for balance, particularly in unusual situations.
Smaller brained creatures with excellent balance usually have smaller, lighter skeletons.
I am not saying that H.E. had poor balance but I am saying that it must have been relative to their size (similar to us) and weight (in all probability heavier than us) with a smaller brain capacity.
It could however have been that balance were expanded in place of other skills that require relatively large amounts brain functionality, for example language.
being a snowboarder, i have often been called a knuckle-dragger. and yes, sometimes i do use my hands to aid in balance when i am carving some seriously sick turns with my body just inches off the snow...

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#105709 Nov 12, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Although Dan is a real nice guy, unlike you, and he is approachable for sure, do you have any evidence that he is more knowledgeable than me and in what subjects are you referring? Or is it just your god given guesswork doing itís thing and guessing?
Yer a gurl

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105710 Nov 12, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Doink!
Charles, really, stop while you're ahead. Out of curiosity, where are you from?(If you say England, I'll scream) I ask this because there may be a language issue here, maybe you're expressing yourself in a language that's not native to you and therefore are erroneously appearing to quite limited in thought. This I would understand. For this is the only reason you could possibly associate Faraday as the "owner" of electricity. Certainly Faraday had a great influence in both electrical and chemical fields. As an electrical engineer, I have the utmost respect for this man, and would give my left testicle (albeit unwillingly) to have an opportunity to sit down for an afternoon beer with this man just to shoot the sh!t, but you can't possibly believe in any way shape of form that he was responsible for electricity being what it is today, better yet having 'ownership'. Seriously Dude, WTF?
Oh, crap. Now I'm really confused. Who owns lightening then? Thor or Ben Franklin?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#105711 Nov 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And you do it once again. It has already been pointed out to you that it does not matter if more ORIGINAL science is wrong than is right. Peer reviewed publishing is only the first real step in getting an idea accepted. If it is a new idea it will be tested by others to see if it is correct or not. Usually by the time we, the lay people, come across an idea it has been tested several times and whether or not it is correct is known.
Science has this self correcting mechanism. Something totally lacking in your book of myth. And you have just shown that I was correct. You repeated posting an article that has been explained to you. It does not support your claims in any way at all.
So here we are today and the best you and the other evos here can do is beg sciences correcting mechanism. IOW, you are telling me that you cannot present any research that demonstrates the genomes ability to adapt endlessly and without limit while I can present plenty of research data that supports the opposite claim.

Well Subby that's just great Subby because despite your ridicule of our documented account, as far as SCIENCE goes you cannot scientifically refute my claim. The best you can do is beg your disbelief in the first documented account of life arising in the sea because you cannot refute the claim that the genomes ability to adapt is limited. That's great and you don't realize how great that is for us, like it or not.

The claim that the genome cannot possibly be billions of years old is a testable hypothesis that can be supported and falsified, and you evos cannot speak to it. GREAT! That's what I like to see, Subby. However as far as science goes, you're excuses are not acceptable.

This below is the testable claim using genomics that suggests life on earth cannot possibly be billions of years old.

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 mutationĖselection 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. 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 paradigm and gives evolutionists headaches.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105712 Nov 12, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, crap. Now I'm really confused. Who owns lightening then? Thor or Ben Franklin?
ummm...Danny Zuko?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105713 Nov 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Everybody has the right to write whatever they want. That does not make their writing valid for uses in debates.

For example the stories of Mother Goose have no place in this debate. Nor do stories by uneducated fools.

In a scientific debate articles based upon peer reviewed science is what matters.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105714 Nov 12, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So here we are today and the best you and the other evos here can do is beg sciences correcting mechanism. IOW, you are telling me that you cannot present any research that demonstrates the genomes ability to adapt endlessly and without limit while I can present plenty of research data that supports the opposite claim.
Well Subby that's just great Subby because despite your ridicule of our documented account, as far as SCIENCE goes you cannot scientifically refute my claim. The best you can do is beg your disbelief in the first documented account of life arising in the sea because you cannot refute the claim that the genomes ability to adapt is limited. That's great and you don't realize how great that is for us, like it or not.
The claim that the genome cannot possibly be billions of years old is a testable hypothesis that can be supported and falsified, and you evos cannot speak to it. GREAT! That's what I like to see, Subby. However as far as science goes, you're excuses are not acceptable.
This below is the testable claim using genomics that suggests life on earth cannot possibly be billions of years old.
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 mutationĖselection 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. 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 paradigm and gives evolutionists headaches.
Mav, the point was that that article you quoted did not support your idiocy. That is all that needs to be said. Now if you can ask a question without a wall of text trying to defend your idiocy that no one is going to read I would be happy to try to answer it.

Please try not to ask stupid questions.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#105715 Nov 12, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, crap. Now I'm really confused. Who owns lightening then? Thor or Ben Franklin?
Lol, England obviously.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105716 Nov 12, 2013
And Mav, it does your side no good if you constantly make bad links to real science sites and good links to bad science sites. Sanford's work was debunked before it was even published, and you know this.

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
News Thong jeans are just the latest weird fashion t... 20 min Emerald 9
Play "end of the name"... (Jun '15) 1 hr Princess Hey 3,059
Two rhyming words! (Jun '12) 1 hr whatimeisit 278
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 1 hr Princess Hey 150,488
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr Geno 29,121
A-Z of "ANY WORD" that comes to mind! (Sep '12) 1 hr whatimeisit 1,106
#Things You DON'T Want To Hear# 1 hr Pstr 238
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Pstr 224,565
What's one thing you appreciate in your life? 2 hr Pstr 586
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 2 hr Pstr 6,457
More from around the web