Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 218774 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.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#106077 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No empirical evidence demonstrates an organisms ability to adapt without limits and you have a world of breeders and climate change to give you idiots first hand observational data.
As for nested hierarchies, how the heck do you root anything in tetrapod when you have only just dicovered tetrapods were here 400mya prior to any of your stupid transitionals used to root with. What you have is algorithmic magic, not science.
No creationist troll mongering fool such as you has ever sported valid scientific evidence either.

And neither do you. Or will you ever.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106078 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you reckon you can stick with a point for more than one post Subby, while your flapping away there.
Oh yeah, after your constantly getting around with your foot in your mouth about unlimited adaptability and your flapping about my inability to define a human being, and having already presented a couple of examples of evos whale buffoonery, sure I am more than happy to make you look like an evo puppet, yet again. Here we go...
Let's start with you explaining why basilosaurus, 49mya, is found in the fossil record dated as being older than Indohyus, 48mya, the relative basil is pictorially shown as having evolved from. I don't even need to mention ambulocetus natans.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/20...
Now instead of a leisurely 15my to 'evolve' as previously clamed and supported by some crappy empirical research suddenly, it took only 4my, despite deletrious mutations, despite negative epistasis and despite every breeder and every lab experiment demonstrating that hurrying up the process results in a drop in fitness, if not sterility.
On the basis of the data, stripped of its assumptive speculation we see an organism, basilosaurus, that has no ancestral connection to Indohyus at all, nor has basil any ancestral connection to a mouse deer.
Why? because the DATA demonstrates Basilosaurus in the fossil record prior to Indohyus its ancestor.
Now you fill in the gaps with some invented intermediates for your reseachers because, believe me when I tell you, they have no clue.
Maz, how many times does it have to be pointed out that you are the only flapping here. Get that blue waffle cleared up.

Now as to whale evolution. First off, that date looks like it might be off on the Nat. Geo. article. I tried to use the link to its supposed source and it does not work. From what I have seen the basilosaurus lived from 40 to 34 million years ago:

http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl...

Second there can be overlap of different species. The last Indohyus did not have to die off before evolution continued. There could be both species existing at the same time.

Seriously, I would try to confirm that Nat. Geo. date with another source before crowing too much. Even if it is right that does not mean that just because one species exists that the other could not have evolved from a branch of it.

Do you need how evolution works explained to you again?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106079 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you reckon you can stick with a point for more than one post Subby, while your flapping away there.
Oh yeah, after your constantly getting around with your foot in your mouth about unlimited adaptability and your flapping about my inability to define a human being, and having already presented a couple of examples of evos whale buffoonery, sure I am more than happy to make you look like an evo puppet, yet again. Here we go...
Let's start with you explaining why basilosaurus, 49mya, is found in the fossil record dated as being older than Indohyus, 48mya, the relative basil is pictorially shown as having evolved from. I don't even need to mention ambulocetus natans.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/20...
Now instead of a leisurely 15my to 'evolve' as previously clamed and supported by some crappy empirical research suddenly, it took only 4my, despite deletrious mutations, despite negative epistasis and despite every breeder and every lab experiment demonstrating that hurrying up the process results in a drop in fitness, if not sterility.
On the basis of the data, stripped of its assumptive speculation we see an organism, basilosaurus, that has no ancestral connection to Indohyus at all, nor has basil any ancestral connection to a mouse deer.
Why? because the DATA demonstrates Basilosaurus in the fossil record prior to Indohyus its ancestor.
Now you fill in the gaps with some invented intermediates for your reseachers because, believe me when I tell you, they have no clue.
Evolution doesn't run on a set time and I don't know any reason that whales couldn't evolve in 4 million years. If you can show it can't occur over that duration, you haven't provided the evidence here.

As to your 2nd point the differences in age of the fossils in discussion do not break any connections between the two. You have not provided data to make the conclusions that you do. Think of a tree branch. Indohyus is on one branch more basal to the common ancestor between whales and hippos. Just because it is in effect ancestoral to whales does not mean it had to disappear as soon as whales made their appearance. Only a fool that does not understand science and scientific evidence would dance a jig thinking that it does.

You arguments need more cowbell. Really work the cowbell dear.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106080 Nov 16, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Like this -
"I am absolutely delighted to report that our usually recalcitrant fossil record has come through in exemplary fashion. During the past fifteen years, new discoveries in Africa and Pakistan have added greatly to our paleontological knowledge of the earliest history of whales".
(Natural History 5/94) Steven J. Gould
But just five years later, Scientific American (January 1999) reported the discovery of fossilized ankle bones that has “left [whale] researchers even more puzzled than before.” The author of this article states that these bones (found in Pakistan!)“leave researchers wondering where whales came from.” Sorry Steven.
So what happened to all the transitional forms SZ?, none around now,(a broken record for your side), but why? They are found as drawings in evo textbooks to comfort Darwinist's. Your transnationals (all now extinct, we think) have fwd nostrils, none moving to the top.(Mosasaur, Pleiosaur), Whales are independent as skull top breathers.
SBT, you are quoting evolutionists without links. That is not allowed for creatards. Until you provide proper links this is a lie.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106081 Nov 16, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
And avoid details and mechanisms at all costs..
No, we just use the mechanisms that are in question. We don't rant on about mechanisms that have no bearing on the discussion in an effort to create a smokescreen.

In effect you ramble on about how a car works when the discussion is how modern cars came to be. A smokescreen to obscure the fact that creation has no explanation for how cars came to be. An allegorical tale using an object designed by man to describe a discussion about natural, evolved life.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106082 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No empirical evidence demonstrates an organisms ability to adapt without limits and you have a world of breeders and climate change to give you idiots first hand observational data.
As for nested hierarchies, how the heck do you root anything in tetrapod when you have only just dicovered tetrapods were here 400mya prior to any of your stupid transitionals used to root with. What you have is algorithmic magic, not science.
You have that back-asswards as usual. No empirical records indicate a limit to evolution beyond those limits from such laws as the square/cubed laws etc.. Why would people look for a limit to what is observed?

And you do not need every single fossil to see where a nested hierarchy goes. We also have DNA evidence from various species that follows the same nested hierarchies. They can help fill in each others gaps.

I am glad to be of service Maz. Try not to flap so much.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106083 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
..as opposed to squabbling evolutionists with their flavour of the month that ALL agree on at least one evo penchant "It all evolved". LOL!
Ah Maz, I did not expect you to change since our last visit and you have maintained expectations splendidly.

Yes, of course and ad hom attack completely refutes science.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106084 Nov 16, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I think your boxed in, your only choice is to pick which ID you choose.
You have learned something from Maz. If all else fails, declare victory.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106085 Nov 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Maz, how many times does it have to be pointed out that you are the only flapping here. Get that blue waffle cleared up.
Now as to whale evolution. First off, that date looks like it might be off on the Nat. Geo. article. I tried to use the link to its supposed source and it does not work. From what I have seen the basilosaurus lived from 40 to 34 million years ago:
http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl...
Second there can be overlap of different species. The last Indohyus did not have to die off before evolution continued. There could be both species existing at the same time.
Seriously, I would try to confirm that Nat. Geo. date with another source before crowing too much. Even if it is right that does not mean that just because one species exists that the other could not have evolved from a branch of it.
Do you need how evolution works explained to you again?
There ya go. I was trying to remember what was wrong with that waffle.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106086 Nov 16, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I think your boxed in, your only choice is to pick which ID you choose.
What sort of ID is thta?

You do know that IDiocy runs all the way from creationism in sheep's clothing to evolution but God did it. The latter is what Michael Behe believes for example. He knows that we are related to apes, he is not a total idiot after all, but he thinks it could not have happened without God's help.
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#106087 Nov 16, 2013
This is the dumbest thing you have written so far. How about a link to an experiment showing how god walked with man? A scientific model of these spirit forms perhaps? Still bearing false witness I see. What does your imaginary friend say about that?
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually oh bible expert, scientists are always waffling on about the possibility of alien life and here we are trying to give them evidence of it but they are too stupid to realize it.
God walked with man as did other spirits that could transpose into other forms, in this case a snake. The physics behind it is supported by the fact that energy/light, which spirit forms are as is God, are able to form matter.
Now after you pick your dummy up off the floor maybe you evotards can actually present some postive research, you know SCIENCE, that supports an organisms ability to adapt without limit, instead of demonstrating yourselves to be evotards heading for the hills.
The data supports a creationist paradigm in that adaptation is limited and organisms will never adapt out of their familial group.
Until then you can keep fluffing in the wind and begging your philosophical hubris.
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#106088 Nov 16, 2013
Which one of those things proves that snakes can talk?
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
How about I hit you in the head with modern bird footprints dated to 212mya and more than halfway back to the Devonian, being created after sea life.
How about I demonstrate evo scientists with some 'poofing' ability themselves?
These scientists have invented out of thin air, theropods with a reversed hallux instead of admitting they have no clue what they are talking about.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2466-an...
How about a variety of tetrapods that suddenly appear on the heel of the Devonian, 395mya, throwing Tiktaalic out to that great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past and falsified?
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100106/full/n...
I reckon it will be me hitting you over the head with your stupid fossils.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106089 Nov 16, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Like this -
"I am absolutely delighted to report that our usually recalcitrant fossil record has come through in exemplary fashion. During the past fifteen years, new discoveries in Africa and Pakistan have added greatly to our paleontological knowledge of the earliest history of whales".
(Natural History 5/94) Steven J. Gould
But just five years later, Scientific American (January 1999) reported the discovery of fossilized ankle bones that has “left [whale] researchers even more puzzled than before.” The author of this article states that these bones (found in Pakistan!)“leave researchers wondering where whales came from.” Sorry Steven.
So what happened to all the transitional forms SZ?, none around now,(a broken record for your side), but why? They are found as drawings in evo textbooks to comfort Darwinist's. Your transnationals (all now extinct, we think) have fwd nostrils, none moving to the top.(Mosasaur, Pleiosaur), Whales are independent as skull top breathers.
What is it that puzzles the researchers. You don't specify what that is that supports your position other than out of context quotes. Oh, that is it. Quote mining supports your position. Right. I forgot.

Now are you trying to argue that whales evolved from mosasours and pleiosaurs? The scientists that study whale evolution aren't saying that. You are all over the place SBT.

Your arguments need more cowbell too.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106090 Nov 16, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution doesn't run on a set time and I don't know any reason that whales couldn't evolve in 4 million years. If you can show it can't occur over that duration, you haven't provided the evidence here.
As to your 2nd point the differences in age of the fossils in discussion do not break any connections between the two. You have not provided data to make the conclusions that you do. Think of a tree branch. Indohyus is on one branch more basal to the common ancestor between whales and hippos. Just because it is in effect ancestoral to whales does not mean it had to disappear as soon as whales made their appearance. Only a fool that does not understand science and scientific evidence would dance a jig thinking that it does.
You arguments need more cowbell. Really work the cowbell dear.
There also 'isn't any reason' why God couldn't poof life into existence. However, you evos have been waffling on adnauseum for decades that such an argument has no merit.

Indeed if you clowns want to mention whales as some glory sack of evidence then be prepared to have to speak to the ugly truth without having to defer to the bluster of 'there isn't any reason', as your big hero defence.

Your empirical evidence was yet again WRONG. If it was us creos coming up with such a flop, we would never hear the end of it.

I was asked to demonstrate what was wrong with one of your 'best' documented examples of evolution and I have. The fact that you evos don't like that I can and have done so, does not change the fact that I can nor than whale evolution is a great example of the misrepresentation sold to the public.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106091 Nov 16, 2013
davy wrote:
Which one of those things proves that snakes can talk?
<quoted text>
The alien one that lives in another big bang dimension and scoots around on dark matter all day, so you can't see or find him.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106092 Nov 16, 2013
davy wrote:
This is the dumbest thing you have written so far. How about a link to an experiment showing how god walked with man? A scientific model of these spirit forms perhaps? Still bearing false witness I see. What does your imaginary friend say about that?
<quoted text>
Do you mean something like well credentialled researchers operating from the basis of the Copernican philosophy as their overiding principle based on science? LOL! ROLF!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106093 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
There also 'isn't any reason' why God couldn't poof life into existence. However, you evos have been waffling on adnauseum for decades that such an argument has no merit.
Of course it has no merit. It is a mental dead end. What you are arguing for is last Tuesdayism, it is a nontestable, unfalsifiable idea of zero merit. It stops people from looking for an answer. It is the idiots way out.
Indeed if you clowns want to mention whales as some glory sack of evidence then be prepared to have to speak to the ugly truth without having to defer to the bluster of 'there isn't any reason', as your big hero defence.
Your empirical evidence was yet again WRONG. If it was us creos coming up with such a flop, we would never hear the end of it.
I was asked to demonstrate what was wrong with one of your 'best' documented examples of evolution and I have. The fact that you evos don't like that I can and have done so, does not change the fact that I can nor than whale evolution is a great example of the misrepresentation sold to the public.
How was our evidence wrong moron? You have not come close to showing that. You had one questionable article whose date could not be verified elsewhere. And even if it was true the overlap of creatures does not upset the theory of evolution in any way.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106094 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
There also 'isn't any reason' why God couldn't poof life into existence. However, you evos have been waffling on adnauseum for decades that such an argument has no merit.
Indeed if you clowns want to mention whales as some glory sack of evidence then be prepared to have to speak to the ugly truth without having to defer to the bluster of 'there isn't any reason', as your big hero defence.
Your empirical evidence was yet again WRONG. If it was us creos coming up with such a flop, we would never hear the end of it.
I was asked to demonstrate what was wrong with one of your 'best' documented examples of evolution and I have. The fact that you evos don't like that I can and have done so, does not change the fact that I can nor than whale evolution is a great example of the misrepresentation sold to the public.
There isn't any reason that God couldn't have "poofed" everything into existence. However, there is no evidence that such happened and all the evidence indicates that life evolved on this planet including whales. You may like our answers, but that isn't my problem. Come up with better questions.

What creationists come up with is flop. Apparently you missed that.

You haven't refuted anything that I am aware of. Your arm waving about whales is reasonably explained by the theory of evolution through the available evidence as I explained.

More cowbell old girl, more cowbell. Really work the space. You are twerking for Jesus after all.
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#106095 Nov 16, 2013
Severely religitarded.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean something like well credentialled researchers operating from the basis of the Copernican philosophy as their overiding principle based on science? LOL! ROLF!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106096 Nov 16, 2013
Listen Subby and Dan if you think your hubris has any substance the both of you are bigger idiots than I thought.

You would have to be one of the most laziest evos ever.

You fluff and dance around giving challenges and then think your hubris has some sort of merit. I am not fooled by your ability to spam.

If the change of the 4 million years initially speculated down to 4my does not constitute having been wrong intially, to you idiots, then all I can say is no wonder you have all been sucked in. LOL!

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) 14 min Go Out There 209,841
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 23 min Poppyann 11,522
A to Z songs by title or group! 46 min Scarbelly Bob 613
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 1 hr Mustang GT Girl 45,961
Word Association (Mar '10) 1 hr Poppyann 21,716
4 Word Game (Use Same Letter) (Dec '14) 1 hr Mustang GT Girl 1,577
2words into 2new words (May '12) 1 hr Poppyann 7,371
True False Game (Jun '11) 1 hr Poppyann 13,519
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 4 hr Aussie Kev 6,111
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 6 hr Brandiiiiiiii 2,159
More from around the web