Evolution vs. Creation

There are 163744 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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105768 Nov 13, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> If you are ignorant on this, English is an international language, that cuts accross all spheres of life.
It originated in a place called, England.
REALLY?????
WELL I'LL BE DARNED!!!!!

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#105769 Nov 13, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Yer a gurl
Was that a question, a statement or an attempt at humour

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#105770 Nov 13, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>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...
Good example, I hike and often times I need to negotiate hills etc in the same way

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#105771 Nov 13, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Erectus was human you know? Just not our species, they were hunters that ran down game. Even we are capable of running faster animals into the ground, though they can run faster humans have something they don't. The ability to cool while running, we sweat and cool , they cannot so with endurance we can run down faster animals , who will die from heat exhaustion. While we can maintain. This is how we were once, but erectus was a pure runner who had less tools but more stamina to the chase. Hfy could tell you but haven't seen her around in awhile .
Yes I know, same branch of the hominin line

Yes, an aspect of HFYs subject, that’s what I need

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#105772 Nov 13, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Well, I am just getting compliments all over the place. I am not use to that.
I am still in awe of the fact that you have worked in a 50,000 year old Neanderthal site. Only recently have I begun to have any interest in human evolution. But I am finding that I have been missing a treasure trove of great science and evidence for evolution.
I have meant to ask for a while, but keep forgetting. Are you familiar with the work of Diane Gifford-Gonzalez? I came across a reference to her work while I was reading. The work was baseline evaluations of hunting and fishing camps of the Turkana people. She was excavating known sites as a basis of comparison to excavations of ancient sites. I find that the importance of this sort of foundational work is often overlooked, but its value can't be overstated.
You deserve those compliments – lol

Not worked, looked and examined, Cro Magnon is a hobby. I go to the Dordogne a couple of times a year and spend a month (usually underground) checking out Cro Magnon sites. They tend to be visitor attractions (I know, I know, I am a visitor) but I have a couple of friends at the museum of pre-history in Les Eyzies and I can sometimes wheedle my way into usually “interdit” areas of sites. Good job good wine is so cheep in France – lol.

In summer I had the opportunity to get close and personal with the Neanderthal grave at la Roque St Christophe before it was blocked off when the tourists crowded the site. Also into the basement of the “gift shop” where the real archaeology happens.

Nope I’ve not seen Diane Gifford-Gonzalez work before but I know what you mean. My friend Pierre recently excavated cod bones from a site near Le Buruge, The closest sea is 150 miles away. Those few bones provided a whole new outlook on the mobility of Cro Magnon

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#105773 Nov 13, 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.
1. Your first statement is wrong. For a *theory* to be scientific, it make measurable predictions that are repeatable. And the theory of evolution does that: it predicts that species will change over geological time. The evidence supports this in abundance.
2. Yes, evolution *is* happening now. Because of the short time period of modern observation, the degree of change in species is small, but we have observed speciation both in the lab and in the wild.
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.
1. When 'newer' rock layers are under 'older' ones, there is a level between them called a non-conformity where the older one pushed up over the younger one. The layer between is very easily distinguished. This happens a lot in mountainous regions, for example.
2. The basic order of the rocks was determined way before the age of the rocks was known. In the absence of non-conformities (see above), the older rocks are below the younger ones. That allows us to tell the *relative* ages of the rocks.
3. As more layers were observed and classified, it was realized that certain fossils only occur in certain layers. This happens consistently and so the fossils can be used to identify the layer.
4. It was only much later, after the basic sequence of rocks was known that the actual ages were determined (see below).
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.
You imagine incorrectly.
1. Carbon dating is only good for ages less than about 50,000 years because of the relatively fast decay of the C14.
2. Carbon dating is calibrated to things like tree-rings, varves in lake sediments, and ice cores. We have ice cores going back much further than 100,000 years.
3. For older dates, we do not use carbon dating (short decay time), but instead use other isotopes with longer decay times such as uranium, potassium/argon or rubidium/strontium. These allow much older rocks to be dated (carbon dating is only good for organic materials). The results of such radioactive dating techniques are consistent with the order of the layers as determined before radioactivity was known.
4. Is matter eternal? If not where is it from?
Irrelevant to the theory of evolution, but matter has probably existed as long as time has.
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?
No. That's why we collect evidence: to challenge our ideas and to check to see if we got it right. The truth will be consistent with the evidence.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#105774 Nov 13, 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.
Hi Zamarra, I respect your beliefs and opinions, and appriciate the way you approach theis subject. Although I do believe in God in my own way, I believe wholly in evolution as well. Agreed there are many aspects of evolution that science cannot "prove", but it can offer many facts that prove it most probable in comparison to creationism. In fact, here's a good article I read today in the Telegraph providing new proof of the beginning of life over 3.5 billion years ago. Take a moment to read, it's very interesting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-ne...

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#105775 Nov 13, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> If you are ignorant on this, English is an international language, that cuts accross all spheres of life.
It originated in a place called, England.
What are "spheres of life"? According to you, there is only one sphere of life in the universe, called Earth.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#105776 Nov 13, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Was that a question, a statement or an attempt at humour
Attempt at humor. A poor one maybe, but indeed an attempt.:)

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#105777 Nov 13, 2013
Zamarra wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
What you SHOULD apologize for is posting "arguments" (I'm using that term very loosely) against a subject you clearly know nothing about... yet trying to appear as if you do. Isn't there something in your bible about that?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#105778 Nov 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of spamming, little troll, how many times are you going to post this same bullshit?
Only one link is still active, and that one is so full of holes I think the good doctor has cleaned just a couple too many test tubes - the acetone has melted his capacities.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#105779 Nov 13, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> If you are ignorant on this, English is an international language, that cuts accross all spheres of life.
It originated in a place called, England.
I have no issue with crediting my ancestors for creating the English language, and I'm in complete agreement with you that where, when and how something originates is not unimportant.

That is why I don't put any unreasonable stock in a set of books that were written by a primitive militaristic tribe in a wasteland and are predominantly about the mythologies, failures and successes of that primitive militaristic tribe in that wasteland.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105780 Nov 13, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Good example, I hike and often times I need to negotiate hills etc in the same way
knuckle-dragger is a derogatory term skiers use for snowboard riders...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105787 Nov 13, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Mac said something stupid, and i gave him that question. Ok ?
And I gave you one. Which you apparently won't answer.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105788 Nov 13, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, your continued inability to properly link anything but links from creatard sites is more than highly suspicious.
How does a moron continually screw up the links to scientific sites and yet always gets creatard sites linked correctly. I do believe you are doing it on purpose.
Maz, until you link properly all it takes to debunk you is hand waving. I have been waiting for you to post actual links to actual articles that support you. You have not done so yet.
And once again as the great Hitch pointed out, "Claims made without any evidence can be dismissed without any evidence". Your claims are dismissed until you learn how to link properly.
You should have already read the links you boofhead. Others have posted them. Stop being a dork, Subby.

I have already taken the point, anyway. You cannot present one shred of research that demonstrates the genomes ability to adapt/evolve without limits while there is plenty of reseach to demonstrate it cannot. All you lot will do is chase your tails, links or no links.

Seeing as you've lost that point, what would you like to talk about next?

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105789 Nov 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You should have already read the links you boofhead. Others have posted them. Stop being a dork, Subby.
I have already taken the point, anyway. You cannot present one shred of research that demonstrates the genomes ability to adapt/evolve without limits while there is plenty of reseach to demonstrate it cannot. All you lot will do is chase your tails, links or no links.
Seeing as you've lost that point, what would you like to talk about next?
Let's talk about how you are wrong about this one ?
Of course everything has limits within a perspective, but there is no limit to how far a genome can evolve over time.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105790 Nov 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You should have already read the links you boofhead. Others have posted them. Stop being a dork, Subby.
I have already taken the point, anyway. You cannot present one shred of research that demonstrates the genomes ability to adapt/evolve without limits while there is plenty of reseach to demonstrate it cannot. All you lot will do is chase your tails, links or no links.
Seeing as you've lost that point, what would you like to talk about next?
I'm a boofhead?

Who is the one that cannot perform the simple task of making a link? Seriously, kids that can barely read can create links.

I do not want to be accused of addressing the wrong article. All I request is that if YOU want to use an article to base your claims upon then it is up to YOU to provide the link.

If I use an article in a debate you can bet that I will present a link. And yes, I have occasionally screwed up a link in the past, but it has been quite a while since I did so. When you have linked correctly in the past I have had no problem debunking your nonsense why do you think I would have any problem today?

So bring on your claims. Bring on your proper links and we can debate. If you need a hint on how to link I am sure I or others can help you here.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105791 Nov 13, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Let's talk about how you are wrong about this one ?
Of course everything has limits within a perspective, but there is no limit to how far a genome can evolve over time.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/...
That link is a great flop Aura. This is the sort of rubbish you evos like to misrepresent and shove down creos throats, adnauseum.

You need to go back and do BIO101 again.

Evolutionary 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. Biologists often forget that Charles Darwin offered a way of resolving this issue, and his proposal is ripe for re-evaluation in the light of recent research.

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

The lab and nature demonstrates adaptation within species level, NOT ABOVE. That remains a fact regardless of scientists need to give a name to every variation.

I have taken the point Aura.

Evolutionists do not have any research that suggests the genome can adapt endlessly for billions of years. All you can do is post this sort of misrepresentation and hope every one here is too stupid and uneducated to realize it.

Now what would you like to talk about.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105792 Nov 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
That link is a great flop Aura. This is the sort of rubbish you evos like to misrepresent and shove down creos throats, adnauseum.
You need to go back and do BIO101 again.
Evolutionary 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. Biologists often forget that Charles Darwin offered a way of resolving this issue, and his proposal is ripe for re-evaluation in the light of recent research.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n72...
The lab and nature demonstrates adaptation within species level, NOT ABOVE. That remains a fact regardless of scientists need to give a name to every variation.
I have taken the point Aura.
Evolutionists do not have any research that suggests the genome can adapt endlessly for billions of years. All you can do is post this sort of misrepresentation and hope every one here is too stupid and uneducated to realize it.
Now what would you like to talk about.
Hey!! Maz finally created a link. Too bad it does not support her claims. The abstract only states the obvious that religious beliefs disagree with scientific beliefs. Of course there is no or at the very best very poor evidence for religious beliefs while scientific beliefs have all sorts of supporting evidence.

Now Maz, except for incorrectly claiming a victory do you have a point here? Yes, it is hard to document the actual evolution of a major organ, such as an eye. We can model some of their evolution with the aid of computers. All that is needed is to know the general mutation rate, a measurable quantity, the time for a generation, and a rough estimate of the population and we can estimate the time for an organ to evolve.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105793 Nov 13, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a boofhead?
Who is the one that cannot perform the simple task of making a link? Seriously, kids that can barely read can create links.
I do not want to be accused of addressing the wrong article. All I request is that if YOU want to use an article to base your claims upon then it is up to YOU to provide the link.
If I use an article in a debate you can bet that I will present a link. And yes, I have occasionally screwed up a link in the past, but it has been quite a while since I did so. When you have linked correctly in the past I have had no problem debunking your nonsense why do you think I would have any problem today?
So bring on your claims. Bring on your proper links and we can debate. If you need a hint on how to link I am sure I or others can help you here.
Yes you are the boof Subby. The correct links have been posted for you too read and if I bother to redo them I would only get hubris from you again anyway.

Every single bit of recent research Evos come up with gives every indication the genome is NOT designed to adapt endlessley. You lot should have realized it as soon as you stumbled on mutations being mostly deleterious. But OH NO, that would disprove TOE, so off they go with their stupid models full of guess work for insertion values and viola, suddenly the odd benificial mutation is majorly swept. Rubbish. You now have research that suggests even beneficial mutations come together to produce negative epistasis.

These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene.

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

These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation.

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

This has resulted in the accumulation of a large number of deleterious mutations in sequences containing gene control elements and hence a widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...

I'll say it again, I have taken the point. I am not going to dribble on with you, adnauseum, forever over one point.

Would you like to talk about something else?

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 'It feels weird asking everybody for permission... 4 min Xstain Mullah Aroma 74
*Sad music/sad themes Thread* 5 min Crazy Beautiful 125
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 7 min Crazy Jae 8,367
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 8 min Princess Hey 8,283
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 18 min CJ Rocker 79,125
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) 23 min Enzo49 1,796
Poll Middle East Solutions 26 min Enzo49 14
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 48 min CJ Rocker 162,741
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 50 min Jennifer Renee 11,369
I Like..... (Mar '14) 1 hr Enzo49 984
Things that make life eaiser... 1 hr Old Sam 586
More from around the web