Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 186771 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.

“No such thing as ABIODARWINISM”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

No ABIODARWINISTS either!

#110755 Apr 6, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Musta been.
Kinda like the BPT (Big "Poof!" Theory).
I recently saw that referred to as the Big Bong Theory on here.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#110758 Apr 6, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>BS
Yes. I *DO* have a Bachelors of Science degree.

As well as a second, Bachelors of Arts degree.

But that which I posted about horses and donkeys is fact.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#110759 Apr 6, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
There are strict limits to variation that are never crossed which is where the theory of evolution breaks down
False. Give links to direct evidence of such "limits".
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#110761 Apr 6, 2014
Nick wrote:
Ok i think evolution is a cool idea but even if i wasn't brought up in a religious home id never believe it we lack to much evidence to even consider that theory. at this point there i no observable evidence, and although some may say natural selection is proof of evolution its not, actually most christians and other various religions believe in and agree with natural selection. So as far as im aware science has given no observable proof that is 100% backed up by fact to prove evolution.
Nick wrote:
But can you give me any observable proof that i can go and see for myself
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#110762 Apr 6, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with part of what you say, Evolution is a game
I never said you were an atheist, I said you were an evolutionist which one would suppose is the same philosophy
You would suppose wrong.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#110763 Apr 6, 2014
Nick wrote:
<quoted text>
But how is that 100% backed up fossilization doesn't have to take millions of years it just needs the right conditions we have fossilized teddy bears for example that were fossilized less than 10 years ago and if the fossils "prove" evolution then why is there so many missing links and remember its called the "theory" of evolution for a reason
First - you NEVER get "100% proof" in science. The reason? In order for concepts to be scientific they have to have the potential to be falsified. And that's how science makes scientific predictions. If you find this, then the hypothesis is falsified. If you find that instead, then it isn't.

So far evolution has not been falsified.

Also the word "theory" in science does NOT mean "wild guess". In science, a scientific theory is an explanatory model containing facts and data which is capable of making successful predictions based upon observable evidence. Theories NEVER get "proven". Instead theories are demonstrated via the application of the scientific method. Also known as testing.

So the reason it is called the THEORY of evolution is because it WORKS. Ya know, like the theory of gravity.

“No such thing as ABIODARWINISM”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

No ABIODARWINISTS either!

#110764 Apr 6, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
BS
They don't have the same number of chromosomes. Neither do humans and the other great apes. By your reckoning, we are the same species as they are.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#110765 Apr 6, 2014
Nick wrote:
<quoted text>
No thay was natural selection and like i said a few comments back us christians believe in that to natural selection is real but one animal doesnt not simply turn into another when you have a cow you get a cow not a chicken or a horse :-P
And that's a good thing. For if you had a cow giving birth to a chicken or a horse, that would FALSIFY evolution. Because it would be a violation of nested hierarchies.

Therefore what we observe is entirely consistent with the theory of evolution.

“No such thing as ABIODARWINISM”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

No ABIODARWINISTS either!

#110766 Apr 6, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
No you are talking about Variation of characteristics within a species
There are strict limits to variation that are never crossed which is where the theory of evolution breaks down
Different chromosome number means two different species in this case.

No the theory of evolution explains why there are limits to cross breeding.

You can squeeze your eyes shut tight and strain all you wish, but it won't change the facts.

“No such thing as ABIODARWINISM”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

No ABIODARWINISTS either!

#110767 Apr 6, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. I *DO* have a Bachelors of Science degree.
As well as a second, Bachelors of Arts degree.
But that which I posted about horses and donkeys is fact.
Nicely done, but he doesn't know much about higher education.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#110768 Apr 6, 2014
Nick wrote:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

"Section 1: Priorities

The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge."

That means the conclusion comes first before evidence.

Meaning evidence does not matter to them, for if they find evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs they are to refer to the conclusion first no matter what.

That is why creationists are commonly known as Liars For Jesus.

“No such thing as ABIODARWINISM”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

No ABIODARWINISTS either!

#110769 Apr 6, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, cross breeding for mules or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish.
You are confusing hybridization and selective breeding. Selective breeding can use hybridization and does frequently. However, the limits on hybridization are reproductive isolation of the progeny in most cases.

You are correct that selective breeding can lead to loss of phenotypes, but it is not always true. There are a number of underlying reasons for this that have filled books. Books are those quadrilateral things with paper pages all bound together. You find them in libraries...a library is...oh never mind. Anyway, you will note that the key word is breeding. It is difficult to breed hybrids that don't reproduce.

A mule is hybrid organism. A character is size, shape, length of legs, musculature, behavior. In the case of a mule, sterility is part of the package. There is no further line. You want more you have to go back to the source. Will varieties from selective breeding, they simply don't just die out. You do eat vegetables don't you? If they died out, most of would too.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#110770 Apr 6, 2014
Nick wrote:
I hate when people say i dont know what a scientific theory is it is something that has been tested enough that it can be used to describe a certain phenomenon correctly but however it does not say that the theory is 100% true as science isnt perfect and it does has some minor flaws such as theories that have been made but then disproven
That is good. This is what distinguishes science from religious dogma. For as you have just seen in the AIG Statement Of Faith, religious dogma is more important to them. Whereas in science, it constantly changes and adapts to new evidence as and when it is discovered. This means our theories change in order to accommodate new evidence, or in rare cases, may even be thrown out completely.

150 years later though, the theory of evolution has not been thrown out yet.
Nick wrote:
and as i a christian do not believe in evolution
But here's the problem - your religious beliefs are NOT important. Never have been.

Reality does not care about your beliefs. Reality simply is what it is.

The problem with creationists they have a habit of rejecting reality because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Which is ironic, for that means they are rejecting creation.

No one can say whether or not a God exists or not. But if it does, it used evolution.
Nick wrote:
and will not ever until i can see with my own eyes that something turns into something else
Here's just a small example:

http://images.tutorvista.com/content/heredity...

Keep in mind the fossil record is replete with examples like this.
Nick wrote:
or let me re phrase that, that something gains new benificial data/info through theire different mutations and a long process of natural selection
http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/TCTDUMIJ55H2B...

Of course just because you personally don't know anything about biology doesn't mean that geneticists have not known about mutations giving rise to new genetic material for many many decades now.
Nick wrote:
But as i have not been given any of this supposed "proof" that you all say there is you will not easily persuade me in any way (and yes i know that last part sounded pretty stuborn, but i am intitled to my own opinion).
You have now been provided with the evidence, but we won't easily persuade you because not only do you not understand the subjects involved, you aren't really interested either.

You are entitled to your own opinions. But it just so happens your opinions are uninformed to say the least.

And as I said - reality doesn't care about your opinions.
Nick wrote:
And lets face it science has been miss"analaysed" in the past and things have been changed for example we used to think the atom could not be diveded then we got the atom bomb and another example we used to think the earth was flat and i strongly assume that evolution will be something like those examples in the perhaps near or even distant future
So what you're saying is that science figured out that previous concepts were wrong using the scientific method?

Thought so.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#110771 Apr 6, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try but appearances are deceiving here.
"If an object is placed into such a well and left there for a period of months or years the object acquires a stony exterior. At one time this property was believed to be a result of magic or witchcraft, but it is an entirely natural phenomenon and due to a process of evaporation and deposition in waters with an unusually high mineral content.
This process of petrifying is not to be confused with petrification wherein the constituent molecules of the original object are replaced (and not merely overlaid) with molecules of stone or mineral."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrifying_well
You mean (GASP)

Answers In Genesis LIED?!?

:-O

I'm shocked. Shocked I say.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#110772 Apr 6, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
I really do not care if you accept evolution, but it is more religion than science because there is absolutely zero proof
That's fine. "Proof" is for maths and alcohol. Science deals with facts and evidence. And that's what evolution has in SPADES.

Fact is, reality disagrees with you. And you will always remain wrong because you are never able to refute any of the facts presented. So by all means, continue your emtpy rhetoric against biological reality. You only succeed in making yourself look ignorant.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#110773 Apr 6, 2014
Nick wrote:
<quoted text>
Why because i used. Creationist website look i honestly do t care if you call me bad names im sticking by my religion because it gives hope and a sense of belonging along with many other things, ok maybe that fossilized teddy bear thing was actually formed by concretation or however its spelt but i still have a rigt to my own opinion and i hate when you guys think you can call me a fool or stupid because i dont believe the same as you
It's not because we don't share your beliefs. It's because you're wrong, and you aren't interested in finding out why you're wrong.

Now go and find a good university that teaches evolution, learn something about it, and then go and falsify evolution for real by publishing a genuine scientific paper on the subject.

There's a REASON why no-one on the planet has been able to do that yet. And it's NOT because of the worldwide Darwinist atheist conspiracy.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#110774 Apr 6, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is a mule sterile?
Why are Larus gulls not sterile?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#110775 Apr 6, 2014
Nick wrote:
Ok but think of this despite your well put little argument no one on here has given me a suitable piece of proof the only thing ive gotten was oh the fossils but with the amount of missing links
Sure, there's lots of missing links.

But you ignore the fact that there's lots of links. And FROM those links, evolution is able to successfully predict the characteristics of the fossil links which are missing.

No other theory can do that. Because so far no one HAS another theory. Therefore we stick to the one that works.
Nick wrote:
and some miscalculations in some carbon dating or etc i cant chose to believe it so give me proof of evolution and i may believe you
And this is part of your problem - the validity of evolution does NOT depend on carbon dating, as carbon dating is only useful for things around 50,000 to 100,000 years old tops. Evolution involves MILLIONS of years, therefore carbon dating is not really an issue.

Not to mention that rejecting scientific dating techniques is NOT about biology - they are about chemistry and physics.

So in short, you're not just rejecting biology. You're rejecting ALL fields of science period.

So stop using your computer. It doesn't work and you're not really having this conversation.

“No such thing as ABIODARWINISM”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

No ABIODARWINISTS either!

#110776 Apr 6, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean (GASP)
Answers In Genesis LIED?!?
:-O
I'm shocked. Shocked I say.
Say it isn't so. Say it isn't so.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#110777 Apr 6, 2014
Shazam wrote:
<quoted text>
No offence but that sounds pretty ignorant and you do know that no ones been able to disprove any specific part of the bible and yet evolution has had some flaws that have been revised and it has many holes so maybe the tables are the other way around
Yes, evolution can be revised as new evidence is taken into account.

However the Bible was falsified long ago, at least, if you take it literally that is.

Flat Earth. Adam and Eve. Talking lizards and donkeys. Global flood.

At which point creationists make up all sorts of excuses to claim why these still happened because either the "literal" word of the Bible isn't really literal at all (such as flat Earth), or Godmagic fixes any and all problems (because if God wants a global flood it can darn well HAVE a global flood).

Of course out of creationism and evolution, only ONE of these successfully passes the scientific method. Care to guess which one?

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
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) 15 min TheJerseyDevil 1,813
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 23 min wichita-rick 181,153
News Branded for Bernie: Dozens Get Inked With Free ... 29 min wichita-rick 2
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 33 min SUG here 34,020
News Reported howler monkey still loose in NE Columb... 38 min wichita-rick 4
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 41 min SUG here 30,654
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 42 min SUG here 6,198
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr LOST IN MISSISSIPPI 54,067
The Song Title Game (Jul '10) 2 hr Lemmy is God II 15,870
More from around the web