Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216695 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

#106260 Nov 19, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
We've already done whales, looser. We found descendants that predate their ancestors.
Tetrapods appear suddenly in the fossil record dated to 395mya. How about you talk about your nested hierarchies that root into tetrapoda, now that tiktaalic, the so called first tetrapod, has been falsified.
Yes, we did whales. You lost that one, in case you forgot.

Do you want to see some other tetrapods than Tiktaalic? There are quite a few. You can see some of them in this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod#Fossil_...

Please note, we already had quite a few very fishy land tetrapods. Tiktaalic was important since it was definitely more fishy than land based.

You will probably deny this evidence too.

So Maz, we know you are a creationist. Exactly what sort of creationist are you? You do realize that there is a huge gamut from Kent Hovind's biblical literalism to Michael Behe who believes we evolved, he just believes it is not possible to evolve without god.

What exactly do you believe and why? Or are you too chicken to say?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106261 Nov 19, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Falsified by who?
Your evolutionary reseachers. That's who! Here is the link to your arguing researchers that can't agree on much more than 'we are sure despite all evidence against it, it all evolved'.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100106/full/n...

You may also like to note that to the left of the photo of the tracks is displayed what appears to be a paw print. Paws being an identifying feature of mammals.

Of course the reconstructions and all the hypothesis made of the DATA/tracks is done according to the prevailing bias. Indeed what was found was many tracks that did not even have tail drag marks.

So here we have a variety of tetrapods suddenly appearing in the fossil record 395mya. What you have is the start of a plethora of stories that try to bring evidence for creation into something you evolutionists can live with.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#106262 Nov 19, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
We've already done whales, looser. We found descendants that predate their ancestors.
Tetrapods appear suddenly in the fossil record dated to 395mya. How about you talk about your nested hierarchies that root into tetrapoda, now that tiktaalic, the so called first tetrapod, has been falsified.
What date? 29th August or 30th?

395mya is give or take, even .001% error is almost 4 million years either way. Consider that humans have only been on this earth for about 5% of 4 million years

As is usual for a fundy you seem to have no grasp on the concept of time

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106263 Nov 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we did whales. You lost that one, in case you forgot.
Actually I won that point also. You turned to idiot by rejecting a published article in National Geographic like the fool you are.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106264 Nov 19, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Your evolutionary reseachers. That's who! Here is the link to your arguing researchers that can't agree on much more than 'we are sure despite all evidence against it, it all evolved'.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100106/full/n...
You may also like to note that to the left of the photo of the tracks is displayed what appears to be a paw print. Paws being an identifying feature of mammals.
Of course the reconstructions and all the hypothesis made of the DATA/tracks is done according to the prevailing bias. Indeed what was found was many tracks that did not even have tail drag marks.
So here we have a variety of tetrapods suddenly appearing in the fossil record 395mya. What you have is the start of a plethora of stories that try to bring evidence for creation into something you evolutionists can live with.
How does that falsify Tiktaalik?

Maz does not seem to understand that several different related species may live at once. Once again, an extant species does not have to die for a new species to appear. Sometimes yes, but not in this case where new niches are opening up. Then we would expect to see several different species, at different points in evolution, alive at the same time.

You did not look at the nice chart I had for whales, did you! It showed the overlap of several species.

If you don't understand how evolution works it is easy to make foolish mistakes like this one of yours Maz.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106265 Nov 19, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What date? 29th August or 30th?
395mya is give or take, even .001% error is almost 4 million years either way. Consider that humans have only been on this earth for about 5% of 4 million years
As is usual for a fundy you seem to have no grasp on the concept of time
Boofhead. Is this the best you can do?

Suck it up. You have yet another falsification to add to the that great garbage bin of falsified empirical evidence that goes to further support the basis of all evolutionary prattle...

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/...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106266 Nov 19, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I won that point also. You turned to idiot by rejecting a published article in National Geographic like the fool you are.
Nat. Geo is a popular magazine that has failed before. I challenged you to find another article and you gave me one on Ambulocetus, if I remember correctly. At any rate your second article did not claim it was a basilosaurus. You could find no supporting data for your article. One article by itself is very poor data.

You lost that one since you did not check out the very nice chart of overlapping whale and whale forerunner species and ignored it.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106267 Nov 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How does that falsify Tiktaalik?
Maz does not seem to understand that several different related species may live at once.
Yep, that sure made a mess of the evo claim that species go extinct to give way to the newest and fitter model, didn't it????. DER!
Once again, an extant species does not have to die for a new species to appear. Sometimes yes, but not in this case where new niches are opening up. Then we would expect to see several different species, at different points in evolution, alive at the same time.
You did not look at the nice chart I had for whales, did you! It showed the overlap of several species.
If you don't understand how evolution works it is easy to make foolish mistakes like this one of yours Maz.
Your best researchers do not know how evolution works eg negative epistasis. The how, when, where and why of evolution is still up for grabs. You hypocrite, that demands a higher level of substantiation from a creationist than you lot have ever been able to present for yourselves.

Listen up! Evos have basilosaurus dated to 49mya. You have indohyus that resembles a modern mouse deer/chevrotain and ambulocetus natans that resembles a sea lion or seal and basilosaurus that predates its ancestors, and biology books that are presenting the ancetors of the direct line as their glossy misrepresentation of lineage. That is not evidence for anything other than an over active imagination based on the prevailing bias.

Listen up tail chaser! I have evidence of tetrapods being dated by your own idiots to 395mya. That is direct evidence of land animals being here with NO intermediates between land and sea and suddenly appearing in the fossil record. Hello!

Suck it up Suuby, because all your blustering, opinions and trying to bring evidence for creation into an evolutionary paradigm is fruitless.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106268 Nov 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nat. Geo is a popular magazine that has failed before. I challenged you to find another article and you gave me one on Ambulocetus, if I remember correctly. At any rate your second article did not claim it was a basilosaurus. You could find no supporting data for your article. One article by itself is very poor data.
You lost that one since you did not check out the very nice chart of overlapping whale and whale forerunner species and ignored it.
Your a hypocrite that is now requesting more publication of an already published article.

Of course every single publishing outlet of the highest credibility still has got it all wrong. So you may as well take out your comic books, looser.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106269 Nov 19, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, that sure made a mess of the evo claim that species go extinct to give way to the newest and fitter model, didn't it????. DER!
DER indeed Maz. That is a mistatement of evolution.

And you keep forgetting that a new niche was opening up in both the whale evolution and in the case of Tiktaalik. When a new niche opens new life evolves to fill it. There is no reason at all for the predecessors to die out.

Can you understand that simple fact or do we have to go over it again.

Here, an explanation just for you. If Australians are descended from British people why are there still British people?

Ha! Take that evolutionists.
<quoted text>
Your best researchers do not know how evolution works eg negative epistasis. The how, when, where and why of evolution is still up for grabs. You hypocrite, that demands a higher level of substantiation from a creationist than you lot have ever been able to present for yourselves.
Sure they do. Epistasis is only part of the speed limit. It is not part of an over all limit.

Here is a question, see if you can answer it honestly. Did any of those researchers, who accept the theory of evolution, seem concerned at all about the "problem of epistasis"? You know that they weren't. It is not an issue.
Listen up! Evos have basilosaurus dated to 49mya. You have indohyus that resembles a modern mouse deer/chevrotain and ambulocetus natans that resembles a sea lion or seal and basilosaurus that predates its ancestors, and biology books that are presenting the ancetors of the direct line as their glossy misrepresentation of lineage. That is not evidence for anything other than an over active imagination based on the prevailing bias.
No, you found one article that said that. You could not even find the article that the Nat. Geo article was supposedly based upon. All the articles that I can find about it say from 40 to 35 million years ago.

Since you could not substantiate your date you lost.
Listen up tail chaser! I have evidence of tetrapods being dated by your own idiots to 395mya. That is direct evidence of land animals being here with NO intermediates between land and sea and suddenly appearing in the fossil record. Hello!
Suck it up Suuby, because all your blustering, opinions and trying to bring evidence for creation into an evolutionary paradigm is fruitless.
No, that is not evidence of no intermediates. What a complete effing moron you are.

One more time, species overlap all of the time. And you did not even find fossils of a species, once again you found possible, and I am going to emphasize, possible footprints of a land based species. You cannot claim anything without a body.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#106270 Nov 19, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Your evolutionary reseachers. That's who! Here is the link to your arguing researchers that can't agree on much more than 'we are sure despite all evidence against it, it all evolved'.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100106/full/n...
You may also like to note that to the left of the photo of the tracks is displayed what appears to be a paw print. Paws being an identifying feature of mammals.
Of course the reconstructions and all the hypothesis made of the DATA/tracks is done according to the prevailing bias. Indeed what was found was many tracks that did not even have tail drag marks.
So here we have a variety of tetrapods suddenly appearing in the fossil record 395mya. What you have is the start of a plethora of stories that try to bring evidence for creation into something you evolutionists can live with.
You call that refuted? One controversial paper? Interesting how low your standards get when you think something supports your opinions.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#106271 Nov 19, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I won that point also. You turned to idiot by rejecting a published article in National Geographic like the fool you are.
Here we go again. One article in a *popular* publication and all the scientific papers are immediately wrong. Easy to see who the fool is here.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106272 Nov 19, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Your a hypocrite that is now requesting more publication of an already published article.
Of course every single publishing outlet of the highest credibility still has got it all wrong. So you may as well take out your comic books, looser.
No, I am not a hypocrite.

All of the articles that I can find give a different date for basilosaurus. National Geographic did not do the research. They references a different article themselves. Their link to that article did not work.

That is highly suspicious. Though usually a good resource Nat. Geo. has made mistakes in the past When Nat. Geo.'s own link does not work it sets off alarm bells and I demand more evidence.

Strange, if I could not find more evidence for a non-peer reviewed article I would probably drop it. Why don't you?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#106273 Nov 19, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Boofhead. Is this the best you can do?
Suck it up. You have yet another falsification to add to the that great garbage bin of falsified empirical evidence that goes to further support the basis of all evolutionary prattle...
You haven't falsified shit, darling. What are you going to use besides NatGeo? The History channel?

Pfft
MazHere wrote:
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/...
Just as it more likely for *THIS* research claim to be false than true. You really should drop this one. It's a self-defeating argument.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#106274 Nov 19, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, that sure made a mess of the evo claim that species go extinct to give way to the newest and fitter model, didn't it????. DER!
Quite obvious that you don't know squat about 'evo claims' or your wouldn't make such a dumbass statement.
MazHere wrote:
Your best researchers do not know how evolution works eg negative epistasis. The how, when, where and why of evolution is still up for grabs. You hypocrite, that demands a higher level of substantiation from a creationist than you lot have ever been able to present for yourselves.
Listen up! Evos have basilosaurus dated to 49mya. You have indohyus that resembles a modern mouse deer/chevrotain and ambulocetus natans that resembles a sea lion or seal and basilosaurus that predates its ancestors, and biology books that are presenting the ancetors of the direct line as their glossy misrepresentation of lineage. That is not evidence for anything other than an over active imagination based on the prevailing bias.
Listen up tail chaser! I have evidence of tetrapods being dated by your own idiots to 395mya. That is direct evidence of land animals being here with NO intermediates between land and sea and suddenly appearing in the fossil record. Hello!
It'll take a lot more than 'maybe' footprints,, princess.
MazHere wrote:
Suck it up Suuby, because all your blustering, opinions and trying to bring evidence for creation into an evolutionary paradigm is fruitless.
Obnoxious little twit, aren't you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106275 Nov 19, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You call that refuted? One controversial paper? Interesting how low your standards get when you think something supports your opinions.
What is even worse is that Maz has a totally effed up understanding of the theory of evolution. She cannot see that new niches are opening up and there is no reason for creatures in the old niches to die out.

So we have fish that live in the sea. A small population opens up the niche of shallow water and near water. From them another niche opens up to purely land dwelling animals. That is three different niches so no reason for any of the three to die out.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#106276 Nov 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What is even worse is that Maz has a totally effed up understanding of the theory of evolution. She cannot see that new niches are opening up and there is no reason for creatures in the old niches to die out.
So we have fish that live in the sea. A small population opens up the niche of shallow water and near water. From them another niche opens up to purely land dwelling animals. That is three different niches so no reason for any of the three to die out.
Precisely.

“Jon Snow”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#106277 Nov 19, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Many of the basis were above sea level, this is not a local catastrophe. Put about 30 years more geology under your belt.
Turtles dive to shallow water and can surface, they are found fossilized on-shore and in-shore, they would no be thousands of feet deep as the first to get covered. Fact as floaters they can be last.
Reptile's drown and immediately sink, doubt the big guys were good swimmers. The Morrison is a turbitity that covers thousands of square miles here and is full of them, mixed with clams and shells in a high-speed underwater mud flow. Recently found buried in soft body and still smelly, you will recall.
Oh and your theory does too rely on where the code and cell operation came from, nice try. My point is, the DNA code and cell mechanism has never been seen to evolve, it remains an untouched outside system controlling all life for your 3.6 bill years. why hasn't it changed if mindless evolution is so creative in all that time? This is a mechanism that utterly falsifies Darwinian evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =tb6xdaC9hrMXX
The earth fried? I have no idea what you have been reading. We are here, our ancestors made it through the judgement, Dr. Brown here is really onto something -
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Living in a false reality doesn't make your dreams come true...
WAKE THE F_CK UP!

“Jon Snow”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#106278 Nov 19, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
We've already done whales, looser. We found descendants that predate their ancestors.
Tetrapods appear suddenly in the fossil record dated to 395mya. How about you talk about your nested hierarchies that root into tetrapoda, now that tiktaalic, the so called first tetrapod, has been falsified.
Trace fossils don't falsify actual fossils, but it brings them to question yes.
You can not determine and change the record with a trace fossil alone. Honestly all it does , if it truly was a tetra-pod is push back the timeline and fits one more piece into the puzzle.
Footprints of the Abominable snowman ..didn't prove there was a Abominable snowman.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#106279 Nov 19, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen to this waffle bag go. Where is all this research of yours that even makes adaptation from microbe to man a possibility against all odds.
See post above. Looser!
Then obviously you were never a zygote because looking at your DNA indicates design. Hence you were never developed and were magically poofed. You winz.

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
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 min Denny CranesPlace 20,450
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 4 min Denny CranesPlace 67,156
Any Word ! (Mar '11) 5 min Princess Hey 6,395
Let's play "follow the word" (Jun '08) 10 min Princess Hey 48,260
News Trump's bizarre claim that the Clinton email co... 11 min Rider on the Storm 999
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 28 min Mr_FX 61,050
Post any FOUR words (Feb '16) 30 min Mr_FX 2,380
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 45 min Bad Bex 10,580
All Christmas Carols/Songs and Quotes.. 52 min Truth 55
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Sublime1 206,953
More from around the web