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.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105737 Nov 12, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Two idiotic comments
Where did the first living system acquire it's heredity.
Complexity is not a marker of design? flagellum motor
It might be. How is "complexity" measured? What is the demarcation line between design and non-design? And how was that line determined in an objective manner via the scientific method? What are the mechanisms of design and what evidence do you have of those mechanisms? Of course you are aware that I do not want this to be answered with 'Humans make (whatever) therefore God make humans'.
Zamarra

South Gate, CA

#105738 Nov 12, 2013
I'm a Bible-Believing Calvinist Creationist, but although there are plenty of scientific evidences for it (see Bob Jones University Space and Earth Science Books for examples) creation can't be fully explained or proven by science because Supernatural things cannot.
However, I would like to contend that Evolution can't be explained Scientifically either.
1. For something to be scientific, it must be observable, measurable, and repeatable. Nobody observed or measured evolution, and nobody can make it repeat itself. It is not apparently happening now, so all evolution is theory and not science.
2. Much of the basis of science is circular reasoning. Example: there are rock layers that are supposed to be x number of years old and scientists "know" that by the fossils. And they know how old the fossils are by what rock layer they're in. The problem: not only is it circular reasoning, but there is the additional problem that some "newer" rock layers and fossils are buried way beneath "older." ones.
3. I imagine you'll answer number 2 with something about carbon dating. The problem:Carbon dating has only been proven accurate with something up to 5000 years. All beyond that has been speculation because nobody has been able to find something that they know FOR SURE is older than that to compare with.
4. Is matter eternal? If not where is it from?
5. Thought question: Even if evolutionists could come up with a theory with fewer holes that matched up with all the evidence, does something being theoretically possible make it historical fact?
6. I realize this is long, but if anyone is still reading, please remember that you can't make a point by just insulting everyone who disagrees with you. It destroys your credibility, no matter how sound and logical your arguments may be. Please please consider that.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105739 Nov 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
Read up on clotting to the point where you can understand the process and imagine yourself debating Behe in front of an unbiased audience. It's complicated and no where in the biological world is it in any form simple. This is the basic question of ID, the existence of complex processes/organisms makes good sense for ID and the burden of proof rests on evolution to explain your side, like MO-1, your done before your start.
Bub, Dover already happened. I can guarantee you that if Behe argued for ID in front of me right now, EVERYONE in the entire world will know EXACTLY what they knew about ID when they made it up - that something did something, somehow, somewhere, at sometime. In fact that's precisely what happened when the DI Dellows themselves turned up to review their buddie Meyer's new book. Something intelligent did something intelligent. Wowzer.
SBT wrote:
On Behe, how can you know his position, today? I will tell you from first hand knowledge, your sources are wrong or outdated.
Yes, it seems pretty much all your claims apparently rely on first-hand anecdotes which no-one else can verify. All I can tell you is from what he's said in the past. Although an IDCreationist he has said that God might be dead, and also that common ancestry is "basically" the correct model (a point which he had to concede in his rather public debate with ERV), that he hasn't done any "scientific research" into IC, and that he's now touring the church circuit fleecing money of rubes like you by giving speeches telling ya that ID proves Godmagic and evolution is from Satan. Okay, I might have exaggerated that last bit about Satan.

Since then, as far as I am aware, any changes in his theological outlook have not been made public. But it would not be all that unusual, such as his pal Billy having to convert to YECism from OECism so that they wouldn't get him EXPELLED from their church 'teaching' seminars.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105740 Nov 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, God doesn't make junk
I'm sorry but this contradicts the Bible.

But thanks once again for telling us all that you don't give a crap about science.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105741 Nov 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Seen anyone on your side step up an debate him in public?
I thought Dover was very public. As was his debate with Abbie a little later:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/erv-h...

I suspect this is why he didn't turn up to the online unveiling of his pal's book on apologetics.

(evil grin)
Mugwump

Glasgow, UK

#105742 Nov 12, 2013
Zamarra wrote:
I'm a Bible-Believing Calvinist Creationist, but although there are plenty of scientific evidences for it (see Bob Jones University Space and Earth Science Books for examples) creation can't be fully explained or proven by science because Supernatural things cannot.
However, I would like to contend that Evolution can't be explained Scientifically either.
1. For something to be scientific, it must be observable, measurable, and repeatable. Nobody observed or measured evolution, and nobody can make it repeat itself. It is not apparently happening now, so all evolution is theory and not science.
2. Much of the basis of science is circular reasoning. Example: there are rock layers that are supposed to be x number of years old and scientists "know" that by the fossils. And they know how old the fossils are by what rock layer they're in. The problem: not only is it circular reasoning, but there is the additional problem that some "newer" rock layers and fossils are buried way beneath "older." ones.
3. I imagine you'll answer number 2 with something about carbon dating. The problem:Carbon dating has only been proven accurate with something up to 5000 years. All beyond that has been speculation because nobody has been able to find something that they know FOR SURE is older than that to compare with.
4. Is matter eternal? If not where is it from?
5. Thought question: Even if evolutionists could come up with a theory with fewer holes that matched up with all the evidence, does something being theoretically possible make it historical fact?
6. I realize this is long, but if anyone is still reading, please remember that you can't make a point by just insulting everyone who disagrees with you. It destroys your credibility, no matter how sound and logical your arguments may be. Please please consider that.
First you will find most on this forum to only resort to insults when either
A) the ''recipient'' starts hurling them first
B) the 'recipient' insists they know more than people whom have spent their lives studying the subject.

Anyway , few points.

1)
science doesn't require DIRECT observation, evolution can be observed directly in the small timescales we have, and indirectly via the fossil record, genetics and is repeatable (see lenski)

2)
This is simply wrong, rocks are not dated by fossils and visa-versa but by independent methods which just happen to correlate (cool huh?)

3)
Carbon dating is good upto about 60k years, however other radiometric dating methods are available.

4) this is an evolution forum, so not sure of your point

5) you haven't really presented any holes , possibly just some misconceptions, but there are various falsifications of ToE which would destroy it - that is how scientific theories work - just hasn't happened.
Furthermore , if a more compelling explaination of the diversity of life was presented then it may trump ToE , however again, this hasn't happened - have you got such a theory ?, that is supported by multiple lines of evidence , and can be falsified.

6)
See my opening paragraph
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105743 Nov 12, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Chuckie can't admit to even the slightest "oops" - not even in something as simple as choice of words.
Now he's locked on to his favourite obsession.
And he's still wrong.
And it's all my fault.

It's great, any time he talks about anything else just holler "English language!" and watch him rant. For weeks.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105744 Nov 12, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Then prove it, instead of waving your hand with simplistic responses because I will post it until you do.
Simplistic responses are all that's needed until you can make Jewish wizards pass the scientific method.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105745 Nov 12, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll ditto my post above.
Penchants are not an acceptable scientific reply.
Since when do you care?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105746 Nov 12, 2013
Zamarra wrote:
I'm a Bible-Believing Calvinist Creationist, but although there are plenty of scientific evidences for it (see Bob Jones University Space and Earth Science Books for examples) creation can't be fully explained or proven by science because Supernatural things cannot.
So there's scientific evidence for supernatural creationism even though supernatural creationism is not amenable to the scientific method.

Your beliefs however are irrelevant to reality.
Zamarra wrote:
However, I would like to contend that Evolution can't be explained Scientifically either.
1. For something to be scientific, it must be observable, measurable, and repeatable. Nobody observed or measured evolution, and nobody can make it repeat itself. It is not apparently happening now, so all evolution is theory and not science.
Except that because evolution is observable, measurable and repeatable, evolution passes the scientific method. That is WHY it is a scientific theory. If it was not, it would not even BE a theory. It would be like creationism. Therefore here is merely one example of how it passes the scientific method:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Zamarra wrote:
2. Much of the basis of science is circular reasoning.
Then stop using your computer. I don't care if science works, stop using it.
Zamarra wrote:
Example: there are rock layers that are supposed to be x number of years old and scientists "know" that by the fossils. And they know how old the fossils are by what rock layer they're in. The problem: not only is it circular reasoning, but there is the additional problem that some "newer" rock layers and fossils are buried way beneath "older." ones.
No, fossils are used only when other dating methods are not appropriate. However when they are usable they are consistent.
Zamarra wrote:
3. I imagine you'll answer number 2 with something about carbon dating. The problem:Carbon dating has only been proven accurate with something up to 5000 years. All beyond that has been speculation because nobody has been able to find something that they know FOR SURE is older than that to compare with.
No, carbon dating is accurate up to at LEAST 50,000 years. Other dating methods can measure longer. But since that has no bearing on evolution (which doesn't rely on carbon dating as 50,000 years is still too short) it's not a problem for biology. This also means you are arguing against chemistry AND physics, not just biology.
Zamarra wrote:
4. Is matter eternal? If not where is it from?
Energy. Is energy eternal? Currently unknown.
Zamarra wrote:
5. Thought question: Even if evolutionists could come up with a theory with fewer holes that matched up with all the evidence, does something being theoretically possible make it historical fact?
So far it's the ONLY theory capable of explaining anything at all in biology. But if you have an alternative that can predict protein function with 96% accuracy we'd love to hear it.
Zamarra wrote:
6. I realize this is long, but if anyone is still reading, please remember that you can't make a point by just insulting everyone who disagrees with you. It destroys your credibility, no matter how sound and logical your arguments may be. Please please consider that.
In that case tell that to your creationist friends. Reality however is not kind to creationism. These are your options:

1 - There's no God and evolution is real

2 - God used evolution

3 - God lied

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#105747 Nov 12, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
2)
This is simply wrong, rocks are not dated by fossils and visa-versa but by independent methods which just happen to correlate (cool huh?)
Actually, there are "index fossils".

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/din...

"Index fossils are commonly found, widely distributed fossils that are limited in time span. They help in dating other fossils found in the same sedimentary layer. For example, if you find a fossil from an unknown era near a fossil from a known time, you can assume that the two species were from about the same time."

But this is (from what I understand) used primarily in the field, and closer, more precise LAB inspection of the subject material is done at a later time.
Mugwump

Glasgow, UK

#105748 Nov 12, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, there are "index fossils".
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/din...
"Index fossils are commonly found, widely distributed fossils that are limited in time span. They help in dating other fossils found in the same sedimentary layer. For example, if you find a fossil from an unknown era near a fossil from a known time, you can assume that the two species were from about the same time."
But this is (from what I understand) used primarily in the field, and closer, more precise LAB inspection of the subject material is done at a later time.
Yeah, that was kind of my point , index fossils are used , but as a 'short cut', but seperate lab testing has already dated the layers in 1000s of other cases.

It's like saying , okay we have found that these 2 atoms bond in a particular way in all cases, so we won't go over the same tests again and again.

Ok , dodgy analogy but it's late and haven't slept much
Zamarra

South Gate, CA

#105749 Nov 12, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
First you will find most on this forum to only resort to insults when either
A) the ''recipient'' starts hurling them first
B) the 'recipient' insists they know more than people whom have spent their lives studying the subject.
My other points I will defend later if I get to it, but I think on this one you may have misunderstood me. What I mean about insulting people you disagree with was NOT only aimed at evolutionists. I recognize that all types of people do it, whether "recipient" or whatever else. I apologize if I phrased that part poorly.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105750 Nov 12, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, there are "index fossils".
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/din...
"Index fossils are commonly found, widely distributed fossils that are limited in time span. They help in dating other fossils found in the same sedimentary layer. For example, if you find a fossil from an unknown era near a fossil from a known time, you can assume that the two species were from about the same time."
But this is (from what I understand) used primarily in the field, and closer, more precise LAB inspection of the subject material is done at a later time.
Yup, and one thing that creationists cannot explain at all with their sorting nonsense are microscopic index fossils. And that is work that is done in the lab to date strata.

Index fossils are dated by their relationship to igneous eruptions. Somewhere in the world almost every fossil will be associated with a igneous eruption that interrupts a strata. That particular strata can be dated at that point. Eventually by bracketing different fossils with different eruptions we know what time period each fossil represents. The more fossils that are found in a strata will limit the age of the strata more and more.
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#105751 Nov 12, 2013
Where is the data that supports the paradigm of the talking snake?
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 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. 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.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105752 Nov 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I see, I show documented evidence of a massive fossil deposit like the Karoo, then you make the comment- "only one in a million or billion", are found? and "Very few bones become fossils"? We need to take you back in front of an audience. There are other pics of the Karoo, you are ignoring direct evidence that falsifies your comments weather you like the links or not. That's why they have juries.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105753 Nov 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I see, I show documented evidence of a massive fossil deposit like the Karoo, then you make the comment- "only one in a million or billion", are found? and "Very few bones become fossils"? We need to take you back in front of an audience. There are other pics of the Karoo, you are ignoring direct evidence that falsifies your comments weather you like the links or not. That's why they have juries.
I did not read your Karoo article since it was from a dishonest source. At any rate it does not matter. It is only a very very very small corner of the world. My statement still stands.

Perhaps if you could find an article about Karoo from an honest source I would read it.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105754 Nov 12, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Very well then! Via what mechanism?
And did the Almighty make a fossil with feathers and three middle-ear bones?
Via the mechanism we can now see working. The same where we see no possibility of accidents to explain cell operation and DNA origin, simply because evolution says we should. You folks act like we are still in the 19th century attached to the notion spontaneous generation. We are not, we are in the 21st century and the microscopes have proved the old all wrong. You contrive more and more elaborate stories, deny complexity and design to the point where you have lost all touch with reality. As for the fossil you mention, feathers, perching feet and hollow bones come from birds, now found in soft tissue.


http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Soft tissue archyx
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18882-s...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105755 Nov 12, 2013
But just for fun let's look at the numbers of the Karoo.

The Karoo has been a depositional environment for the last 250 million years. It is according to SBT 200,000 square miles in extent. It may have 800 billion vertebrate fossils in it. That sounds like quite a few, but let's churn through the numbers.

Take 800 billion and divide it by 250 million and 200,000 and we get 0.016 animal preserved per square mile per year. Now that is a rather high rate. For one fossil a year you would need 62.5 square miles.

Any guesses on how many vertebrate animals live on 62.5 square miles? From mouse size on up? Does anyone think that it would not be in the millions?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105756 Nov 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Via the mechanism we can now see working. The same where we see no possibility of accidents to explain cell operation and DNA origin, simply because evolution says we should. You folks act like we are still in the 19th century attached to the notion spontaneous generation. We are not, we are in the 21st century and the microscopes have proved the old all wrong. You contrive more and more elaborate stories, deny complexity and design to the point where you have lost all touch with reality. As for the fossil you mention, feathers, perching feet and hollow bones come from birds, now found in soft tissue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =tLfeDjjio8kXX
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Soft tissue archyx
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18882-s...
Check out your last article again, it does not say they found soft tissue in the archeopteryx fossil.

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 11 min Dave 224,551
Name something you shouldn't do naked .... (Mar '14) 12 min Parden Pard 593
News Thong jeans are just the latest weird fashion t... 22 min Abrahammock Relig... 6
News 15 weird wedding rituals from all across the gl... 22 min Parden Pard 4
News Thieves ram U-Haul into Louis Vuitton store in ... 28 min Pam 8
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 28 min F_R_E_D 29,108
Poll Things that drive you crazy (Jan '10) 42 min Lol 5,013
Does anyone remember? (Apr '13) 3 hr Parden Pard 1,793
What's one thing you appreciate in your life? 5 hr Laura Beth 581
More from around the web