Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
THE LONE WORKER

United States

#110890 Apr 9, 2014
Tinka wrote:
So what about land mass floating?
Then the great deep broke up and the water came up like a fountain. It brought the salt water with it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#110891 Apr 9, 2014
Tinka wrote:
<quoted text>
Land floats inside on the ocean's surface and if in the case of an opposite maybe in that hu????? The level lets say were to decline you still be floating?
No, land generally does not float.
THE LONE WORKER

United States

#110892 Apr 9, 2014
Tinka wrote:
<quoted text>
If I believe in something why or how would that be pretending, how do you figure?
I believe there are greater Beings amongst us and I believe that there is another....Never mind watch the TV and you find out...
Don't pay those soap operas much attention.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#110893 Apr 9, 2014
Tinka wrote:
<quoted text>
Still no what?
Did someone ask you to get down on your knees?
No, you're still not making much sense. Sorry.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#110894 Apr 9, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive
Good, so then we both agree you were lying previously when you claimed that mutations are never beneficial.

I notice also you have still not apologized for your previous mistakes or addressed them. So thanks once again for a fine demonstration of creationist intellectual dishonesty.
SevenTee wrote:
so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection).
Natural selection and mutation are two separate mechanisms. Once the mutations occur THEN natural selection can act upon them.
SevenTee wrote:
That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures.
Wrong. You're leaving out other mechanisms such as genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer, etc.
SevenTee wrote:
It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence.
Already dealt with the previous post. Since EVERY CELL in our bodies contain our complete genome even when we're only a cluster of cells, or even a single-celled zygote. At which point we don't HAVE any of those intricate components with interconnecting parts. And since the next generation already HAS all that DNA too all it needs is for the DNA to change slightly each time. Which is what we see.

So again under your model you would not be born.
SevenTee wrote:
Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work.
Natural selection does not "choose". If the parts still work after mutations change them slightly then, barring other factors (like being hit by a truck), there's no reason for natural selection to weed it out. Keep in mind that the gene for cytochrome C has 10^93 different functional configurations. Also we're all born with 125 to 175 mutations per generation, and for the most part the human race is fine with that. And has been for thousands upon thousands of years. Our genome is over 3 BILLION bases long.

In short, that's a LOT of legroom.

2 or 300 mutations per generation is not a big deal. But it IS a big deal when they accumulate over millions of years. That's why the numbers work out.

End of part 1
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#110895 Apr 9, 2014
Part 2
SevenTee wrote:
Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time
Wrong. There ARE no "right" mutations. Just mutations that cause problems and those that don't. If they do then natural selection takes care of them. They don't HAVE to be simultaneous for the same reason your internal organs don't have to be in place simultaneously for you to survive. Yet despite your claims to the contrary, your body spends over 20 years before it develops into full adulthood. That is because it has 3 billion chunks of DNA telling it what to do. Just like everything ever born, which is ALWAYS slightly different each time.
SevenTee wrote:
by pure chance.
Wrong. Natural selection is NOT "chance". You're mentioning evolutionary mechanisms that enable evolution then ignoring them later, causing you to contradict yourself. This is why you're not taken seriously.
SevenTee wrote:
That is physically impossible.
Sure it is. But luckily evolution doesn't work that way. Evolution works the way the theory of evolution describes. You just don't have a clue about the theory which leads you to make wrong arguments against it. Meaning you will be wrong forever until you get an education.
SevenTee wrote:
To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.
Except your analogy in no way resembles the mechanisms of evolution. On top of that, your alternative to evolution is GODMAGIC. Therefore AGAIN, under your own premise, NOTHING is impossible. Which again undercuts any argument you will ever come up with.

Here's a hint - if you're utterly clueless about science, and you are, don't talk about science.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#110896 Apr 9, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Um...
Okay okay! I'm using an analogy, I'm conversing with a teenager here! Gotta keep it simple.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#110897 Apr 9, 2014
Nick wrote:
<quoted text>
It specifically says in the bible that God is created everything if evolution is real then the bible is all wrong (which it isnt) which is why were having this debate therefore if this so called "christian" scientist believes what he does that both God and evolution can exist then he is not a christian
It specifically says in the Bible that the Earth is a flat square circle at the center of a geocentric universe which revolves around it.(and that's not how the Earth is by the way)

So therefore the Bible is:

1 - Wrong.

or

2 - An allegory. Parable. Uses metaphors instead of explaining things literally.

Which is it?

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110898 Apr 9, 2014
Nick wrote:
<quoted text>
Why di you guys feel like you have to be such jerks you do know theres this thing called freedom of religion
You are free to believe whatever you like. You chose to air your beliefs in a PUBLIC forum that, had you done a little reading here before you started posting, is frequented by posters that don't share those beliefs.

If you don't want to open your beliefs up to ridicule, keep them to yourself. Problem solved

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#110899 Apr 9, 2014
Nick wrote:
<quoted text>
No ones listened to some of the christian scientists and at least i have my beliefs and can clearly see that the right despite my age
I assume you are referring to that small number of scientists and pseudoscientists that support ID and young earth creationism. They weren't ignored. What they said has been evaluated and shown not to be supported by a evidence and the basic tenants to be untestable and thus not science. It can't even hold up in court. You said it yourself. It is belief. That is what you clearly have.

Denial and ignorance have no age barrier.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#110900 Apr 9, 2014
Nick wrote:
<quoted text>
Why di you guys feel like you have to be such jerks you do know theres this thing called freedom of religion
No one is preventing you from practicing your religious beliefs. When did disagreeing with someone become suppressing their rights? Why is it that those that want to force their particular religious views on everyone else seem to fall on using this as a defense?

Nick you are making one of the basic mistakes of learning. You have decided you have all the answers.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#110901 Apr 9, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.
Well pasted from all the anti-science propaganda material. Previously refuted here, in the field, in the laboratory, the science literature and court.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#110902 Apr 9, 2014
Nick wrote:
<quoted text>
Why di you guys feel like you have to be such jerks you do know theres this thing called freedom of religion
Adam and Eve
Talking snakes
Talking donkeys
Global flood
Flat Earth
Fish submarines
You mean anybody who comprehends that nothing on that list is real is a jerk for saying so?

Freedom of religion... I suppose you mean that certain allowances in reality should be made for Christian believers under the headings of tolerance, diversity and acceptance? How do you feel about atheists, Moonies, Scientologists, Shiites, Wiccans and Leveyan Satanists, then? Do you honestly think anyone believes you wouldn't rather vote for a certifiably insane fundamentalist snake handler than any of the above if they were running for a senate seat?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#110903 Apr 9, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.
70, are you going to pretend you authored this or are you going to provide a citation?

The fallacy (of this part of Fischer's argument - there are many more) is that evolution does not work on the organism, it works on the instruction set. If you tied a pencil to a dog's tail and set it loose to walk on a blueprint for millions of years - with the auto-correction eraser of natural selection following him about, you could end up with plans for an entire apartment building.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#110904 Apr 9, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Well pasted from all the anti-science propaganda material. Previously refuted here, in the field, in the laboratory, the science literature and court.
Good spotting. I thought there was something a little suspicious about his usage of grammar, what with it being correct and all. Shame his science wasn't.

Yes, people, turns out SevenTee so doesn't have a clue he resorted to google to copy-paste any old BS which he liked the sound of, then left out the proper citation. The difference with us, we tend to use our own words, THEN use a citation to back ourselves up to show that we're not making stuff up. And then we can usually discuss the subject.

Dishonesty is the creationist's modus operandi.
Chemist

Virginia Beach, VA

#110905 Apr 9, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
But "prof", you made a mistake before you even finished your first sentence. So you've got no chance of getting there.
<quoted text>
Which only demonstrates that creationism is as inconsistent as we've always thought. Meaning you don't have a scientific argument.
<quoted text>
You're a little short,'prof'.
<quoted text>
Wrong. You talking about shrimp? Coelecanth? They are NOT the same as today, however since evolution doesn't insist on uniform mutation rates all across the board your point is moot anyway.
So why not cut the BS about you having a better scientific explanation and just say that you don't believe in evolution cuz the Bible sez Goddidit with magic? It would save a lot of time.
Bye bye then.
You are mistaken, God did it out of great love not majic. Love, something else that can never be measured, identified or prooven. Yet I think we would all agree love exists. I pray we will also agree, creationism and evolution are not science based but faith based and therefor should be left out of science classes. More appropriately these beliefs as to our existence should be in theology classes. As for a better scientific explanation, there can never be one since the conditions and observations of today can never be proven to be true in the begining.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#110906 Apr 9, 2014
Chemist wrote:
<quoted text>
You are mistaken, God did it out of great love not majic. Love, something else that can never be measured, identified or prooven. Yet I think we would all agree love exists. I pray we will also agree, and evolution are not science based but faith based and therefor should be left out of science classes. More appropriately these beliefs as to our existence should be in theology classes. As for a better scientific explanation, there can never be one since the conditions and observations of today can never be proven to be true in the begining.
Except there *IS* evidence for evolution, whether or not YOU accept it.

Evolution is science, and it will continue to be taught in US public schools.
Creationism is religion, and is illegal to be taught in those schools.

Teach creationism at church, at home, or on the corner of 1st and Main.
But not in public schools.

“I be me, and you are...”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

#110907 Apr 9, 2014
Uhu...sure and all is GOOD...

No attention placed none ever again...

What and who are you????

I think I will have a bite to eat...

“I be me, and you are...”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

#110908 Apr 9, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I assume you are referring to that small number of scientists and pseudoscientists that support ID and young earth creationism. They weren't ignored. What they said has been evaluated and shown not to be supported by a evidence and the basic tenants to be untestable and thus not science. It can't even hold up in court. You said it yourself. It is belief. That is what you clearly have.
Denial and ignorance have no age barrier.
I hope Nick doesn't listen to a thing you are saying as far as what has barriers and not...Who has RIGHTS there are some that actually do...
As far as COURT which one?

To what Nation under one ROOF????

Hey tuff times not just a few selected anymore...To Elites and though it can make things tuffer from tuff to tougher... it's a getting through alright...Ruff and BUFF...

“I be me, and you are...”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

#110909 Apr 9, 2014
P ass and Jesus himself did HE CALL HIMSELF 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
The BIZARRE reasons why men rape in India 5 min Humhainna 1,087
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 7 min _hellbilly_ 320
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 9 min Look at the 3,984
unjumble - jumble 6 letter words 12 min Hoosier Hillbilly 5
last word/first word. (Apr '12) 17 min Hoosier Hillbilly 5,159
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 18 min wichita-rick 152,513
"2" TWO word FUN game*** (Mar '13) 25 min Hoosier Hillbilly 1,279
Is it possible to....... 3 hr CJ Rocker 578
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 4 hr Sarah 25,711
4 Word Game (Use Same Letter) 5 hr Dr Wu 236
More from around the web