Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173401 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 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105921 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What you see is scientists taking data and offering an assumption as a get out of a falsfication for free card.
That is why using your own evo research to slap you with is such fun. It is all flawed and biased rubbish and testimony to the prevailing bias. You lot throw tantrums when creationist research is posted. Evos continual begging the majority is like you burying your head in the sand. The only thing 'ALL' your scientists agree on is "IT ALL EVOLVED", which is no better than "GOD DID IT".
The 'majority' of scientists have been wrong many times. eg human knuckle walking ancestry, single celled LUCA, junk dna.
The point being this...
All research demonstrates the genome is not designed to adapt without limits. From majority deleterious mutations to so called beneficial mutations coming together to cause negative epistasis. None of the data, even from flawed and biased assumptive modelling, supports an organisms ability to adapt for billions of years without extinction.
I told you I have taken the point. Your asiding with every bit of nonsense you can come up with, like Aura, is a further demonstration that evolutionists are unable to support their zillions of claims that support the overarching theory of evolution, point by point.
Once again, no research supports your claims if it did you would be able to link it to this site. All you can do is to link articles that you do not understand.

Now try to think logically for a minute or two, who usually best knows the implications of their own research? Usually it is the researcher himself. Why do none of the researches that you ever link, from credible sources, say that they have found a problem with the theory of evolution.

Now let's look how scientific theories work. Once a hypothesis is well tested and found to have passed its tests by several independent scientists it is considered a theory. Theories are accepted as being conditionally true at this point. In other words they are considered true until somebody finds some serious evidence that they are wrong. The theory of evolution has been tested over 150 years and has never failed one major test. Scientists are very sure that it is mostly correct. Almost all theories can use some tweaking hear and there, so the fact that it is not quite perfect in no way debunks the theory. When a theory lasts as long as the ToE we can be very very sure that it is "right".

Now let's look at creation "science". We do not need to know how creation occurred to show that it happened. Just as we don't need to know all of the details of evolution to know that it happened. If creation happened someone should be able to come up with a theory explaining why we observe what we observe. Why do we see the fossil record the way that we see it? Why do we see nested hierarchies everywhere? It is up to the people who believe in an idea to come up with a hypothesis for their beliefs. To be a scientific hypothesis it must be testable. Creation "scientists" will not even develop a simple testable hypothesis. And you know the reason why. When they have done so in the past their ideas have been debunked in record time.

So if you want to debunk evolution you are going to have to try a lot harder than you have been. People trying to explain how evolution occurred are usually very very bad sources when you are trying to debunk their beliefs.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105922 Nov 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Just one slight problem with your claims - okay quite a few actually: we have evidence and mechanisms, you have zip. Our position is scientific, yours ain't. We don't have to lie, you do.
But hey, as a good Christian martyr you LOVE to be slapped around every day and we're happy to do it.(shrug)
Too bad for you my claims actually reflect and are based on factual information I can present as opposed to you evolutionist turned to offering spamdung in your defence. LOL!

You lot have 150 years of spam and wasted paper in libraries.

I have your own data to slap you with.

Majority deleterious mutations, self repair systems, negative epistasis, huge differences in the Y chromosome even after hammering fragments of sequence together, molecular difference between man and ape, functioning dna with no useless dna, functioning organs with no functionless organs, families of organisms suddenly appearing in the fossil record, evidence animal life started in the sea; all supports creationists expectations and continues to validate creationists predictions. Evos then need to invent stories to explain the unexpected and unpredicted.

You and the best here cannot even present a decent argument to challenge the above claims, let alone falisfy any claim I have made. I have data and have presented much of it.

You have volumes of rubbish, 150 years of falsifications and wasted paper. So far you have presented zip from the flavour of the month support for the prevailing bias, you call evolutionary science.

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#105923 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>

None of the results your research has presented aligns with evolutionary predictions. Both paradigms beg some predictions and expectations. Restictions within the genomes adaptive ability would be a self evident support from and creationist perspective, but not for an evolutionary paradigm..
Okay I'll give you a chance, explain how the modern whales came to be from a creationist hypothesis, and why there are an abundance of intermediate species between ancient land mammals and the whale over millions of years. Why would we think we see a morphology taking place when it isn't. Explain how this is creation and not evolution.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105924 Nov 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay I'll give you a chance, explain how the modern whales came to be from a creationist hypothesis, and why there are an abundance of intermediate species between ancient land mammals and the whale over millions of years. Why would we think we see a morphology taking place when it isn't. Explain how this is creation and not evolution.
Then let's move on to the horse.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105925 Nov 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, no research supports your claims if it did you would be able to link it to this site. All you can do is to link articles that you do not understand.
Now try to think logically for a minute or two, who usually best
etc etc etc
People trying to explain how evolution occurred are usually very very bad sources when you are trying to debunk their beliefs.
Oh for heaven sake, will you just stay on topic instead of spin doctoring some weedly long post full of a million points.

What stupidity for starters saying TOE has never made a wrong prediction. There was a day that you evos shoved totally use less junk dna down creos throats as the supreme evidence of an evo prediction come to fruition. That claim is now in the process of being falsified in line with creationist predictions, with evos back tracking that TOE never made a prediction about non coding dna in the first place. You evos are a load of goal post moving liars only fooling yourselves!. The same goes for vestigial organs.

There is scientific research as evidence of majority deleterious mutations, negative epistasis, families of organisms appearing in the fossil record, huge differences between ape and man including a difference in molecular machinery etc etc etc.

Are you suggesting any claim above is a lie and based on any misrepresentaion of research? Remember, your research is nothing more than testimony to the prevailing bias. You can't separate data from the hypothesis made of the data. Typical evo!

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/...

Most of these studies conclude that the mutation rate in humans today is roughly half the rate that has been used in many evolutionary studies since 2000, which would make genetic estimates of dates older than previously believed. The question now is how much older?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6104/18...

ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6099/11...

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...

That is just some of the data. The reason why deleterious mutations and negative epistasis do not send any species extinct is unknown and only assumptions are offered based on flawed and biased research and a belief in TOE. You cannot refute that, you can only spam and throw tantrums. Hence, not one shred of any support for TOE has any credibility.

So these big long posts of yours full of your opinion are a huge waste of everyones time.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105926 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh for heaven sake, will you just stay on topic instead of spin doctoring some weedly long post full of a million points.
What stupidity for starters saying TOE has never made a wrong prediction.
Maz, did I say that? I don't think so. I said that evolution has never failed a major test. Getting a minor prediction wrong is not failing a major test.

Try again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105927 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
<snip of unsupported rant of Maz flapping her nasty blue Waffle again.>
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/...
Maz, we already have explained how this dubious study does not matter. Science has a self correction method that relatively quickly corrects incorrect research.

Reposting old failed claims of yours is just you admitting defeat all over again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105928 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Most of these studies conclude that the mutation rate in humans today is roughly half the rate that has been used in many evolutionary studies since 2000, which would make genetic estimates of dates older than previously believed. The question now is how much older?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6104/18...
ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6099/11...
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...
That is just some of the data. The reason why deleterious mutations and negative epistasis do not send any species extinct is unknown and only assumptions are offered based on flawed and biased research and a belief in TOE. You cannot refute that, you can only spam and throw tantrums. Hence, not one shred of any support for TOE has any credibility.
So these big long posts of yours full of your opinion are a huge waste of everyones time.
Yes, so what? The exact time of when humans split off form other apes is still not settled. How does that matter? They are trying to solve the problem rather than sitting on their fat ass saying "god did it" without any evidence for god.

And Maz, the only one wasting their time here is you. All you can post is nonsense that is not supported by the articles that you list. It is laughable to say the least.

Since: Nov 13

Maple, Canada

#105930 Nov 15, 2013
For anyone who think's there's "overwhelming" evidence supporting natural selection, you're mistaken.

If you like my opinions please follow me on http://www.opinionoto.com/JordN

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#105931 Nov 15, 2013
hellboy99 wrote:
For anyone who think's there's "overwhelming" evidence supporting natural selection, you're mistaken.
If you like my opinions please follow me on http://www.opinionoto.com/JordN
I am sorry, you are mistaken.

If you don't like my opinions please go to www.eatcrap.com

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105932 Nov 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Maz, we already have explained how this dubious study does not matter. Science has a self correction method that relatively quickly corrects incorrect research.
Reposting old failed claims of yours is just you admitting defeat all over again.
What dubious study? I have posted a plethora of evolutionary studies all of which demonstrate evolutionary researchers have no clue what they are talking about most of the time. Suck it up Subby. Being ignorant is not an appropriate scientific reply.

The data is unexpected and NOT predicted under the umbrella of TOE. However, the data, is expected, predicted and welcome by creationists.

Your waffle about TOE being a theory in evolution itself with no predictive ability backed by 150 years of falsifications doesn't change a thing I claimed and supported with your very own flawed and biased evolutionary research. Either you can support your claims with the rubbish and flavours of the month on offer at the moment or you can't. You, Dude, Aura and the rest of you evos obviously can't, but just want to post anyway.

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#105933 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What dubious study? I have posted a plethora of evolutionary studies all of which demonstrate evolutionary researchers have no clue what they are talking about most of the time. Suck it up Subby. Being ignorant is not an appropriate scientific reply.
The data is unexpected and NOT predicted under the umbrella of TOE. However, the data, is expected, predicted and welcome by creationists.
Your waffle about TOE being a theory in evolution itself with no predictive ability backed by 150 years of falsifications doesn't change a thing I claimed and supported with your very own flawed and biased evolutionary research. Either you can support your claims with the rubbish and flavours of the month on offer at the moment or you can't. You, Dude, Aura and the rest of you evos obviously can't, but just want to post anyway.
Can a self licking ice cream cone explain how modern whales came to be, and why there is a trail of intermediate species along the way over 20-30 billion years , from a creationists hypothesis without there ever being evolution of species?

We wait, but expect....crickets.

BTW the Nobel prize awaits your creation theory, all you have to do is write it!

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#105934 Nov 15, 2013
Oh I'm so wrong...I meant 20-30 million years.
But Expect "crickets".

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#105935 Nov 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
A organism does not change into another type organism.
Some of the offspring of an organism can possibly mutate into another species.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/Bio...
I like he language in the link,..paradoxical,
"these questions have ,as yet,only tentative answers"
and as you said,..possibly mutate.

those are honest descriptions

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105936 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What dubious study? I have posted a plethora of evolutionary studies all of which demonstrate evolutionary researchers have no clue what they are talking about most of the time. Suck it up Subby. Being ignorant is not an appropriate scientific reply.
The data is unexpected and NOT predicted under the umbrella of TOE. However, the data, is expected, predicted and welcome by creationists.
Your waffle about TOE being a theory in evolution itself with no predictive ability backed by 150 years of falsifications doesn't change a thing I claimed and supported with your very own flawed and biased evolutionary research. Either you can support your claims with the rubbish and flavours of the month on offer at the moment or you can't. You, Dude, Aura and the rest of you evos obviously can't, but just want to post anyway.
You can't even pay attention to the articles that you link?

I have heard of stupid, but that takes the cake. Okay, since you are drawing a complete brainfart on this one I will explain it to you. I was referring to the article that said ironically that a fair proportion of peer reviewed articles turn out to be wrong. And I have explained to you more than once that that is not a big problem since scientists check peer reviewed articles all of the time by repeating experiments. False results are quickly found and corrected.

I love how you try to blame others for being ignorant when you can't even understand how you are the ignorant one. Not us. I have taken the time to try to explain your articles to you and it is still beyond the grasp of your tiny little brain to understand.

And lastly, please don't forget, you are the one with a blue waffle. Guys don't have waffles.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105937 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What dubious study? I have posted a plethora of evolutionary studies all of which demonstrate evolutionary researchers have no clue what they are talking about most of the time. Suck it up Subby. Being ignorant is not an appropriate scientific reply.
The data is unexpected and NOT predicted under the umbrella of TOE. However, the data, is expected, predicted and welcome by creationists.
Your waffle about TOE being a theory in evolution itself with no predictive ability backed by 150 years of falsifications doesn't change a thing I claimed and supported with your very own flawed and biased evolutionary research. Either you can support your claims with the rubbish and flavours of the month on offer at the moment or you can't. You, Dude, Aura and the rest of you evos obviously can't, but just want to post anyway.
And the stink from your blue waffle must be keeping your brain from working properly.

The theory of evolution does have predictive powers. Predictive powers are a separate item from testing. It has been tested countless times for over 150 years and has yet to fail a major test. It has made major predictions and they have come true. Some predictions have not come true. Predictions are not in the same class as tests so that is not a big problem at all.

Maz, what do you not understand about this?

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#105938 Nov 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You're either a poe or a blithering idiot. A population has to be separated for a very long time for speciation to occur. This has happened with dogs , as they are a subspecies of the wolf. Races would have gone further if contact and interbreeding between them had not happened.
"All research demonstrates the genome is not designed to adapt without limits."
You are looking at a ruler, and not the tape measure.
You also seem to be incapable of the conception of the deep time
scales needed to understand evolution. Th isolation of a branch on the tree of life is necessary for total speciation to occur.
Now since you don't think massive mutation can take place, changing a species into another. Try to explain Homo floresiensis.
Your inability to understand something is well...your inability.
It isn't evolution that is wrong, it YOU that's wrong.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/deep...
Hmm? MazHere has been discussing the fact that there are limits to the change in a genome , that research has shown it does have limits, which you argue against. And what was your argument? she doesn't understand the deep time scales needed to understand evolution. Your words,....this is the God of the evolutionist ...Time, research shows there are limits!, No! just give it time, time can change a dinosaur into a bird, time can change an ape into a man, or even a puddle of goo into life, all you need is time.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105939 Nov 15, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I like he language in the link,..paradoxical,
"these questions have ,as yet,only tentative answers"
and as you said,..possibly mutate.
those are honest descriptions
It is so nice when creatards admit that they did not understand an article.

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#105940 Nov 15, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm? MazHere has been discussing the fact that there are limits to the change in a genome , that research has shown it does have limits, which you argue against. And what was your argument? she doesn't understand the deep time scales needed to understand evolution. Your words,....this is the God of the evolutionist ...Time, research shows there are limits!, No! just give it time, time can change a dinosaur into a bird, time can change an ape into a man, or even a puddle of goo into life, all you need is time.
To grasp the reality that small changes in fact do occur. Is an admission that a plethora of small changes can be monumental.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#105941 Nov 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> To grasp the reality that small changes in fact do occur. Is an admission that a plethora of small changes can be monumental.
Only if there are no limits, research shows there are.

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
Only Three Word (Nov '09) 4 min Knock off purse s... 12,066
Add a Word, Drop a Panty game 5 min andet1987 737
Word Association. (Nov '10) 6 min Knock off purse s... 18,054
Last Word is First Word (no "breast" word please) 7 min Knock off purse s... 610
True False Game (Jun '11) 8 min andet1987 9,994
Just start naming actors and actresses (Sep '11) 12 min andet1987 3,066
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 15 min Knock off purse s... 9,372
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 36 min oddie 43,406
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 51 min SLY WEST 169,229
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 56 min oddie 18,641
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 1 hr Mega Monster 14,800
More from around the web