Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223288 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

#117393 Jul 9, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Language evolves. Species evolve.
An individual does not create the language and the individual hummingbird does not learn to be its species. Your interpretation of the analogy is flawed... on purpose?
No, sadly he really is that stupid. Right now he is going through the "I demand science and evidence" phase when he does not even understand what he is asking for.

Pathetic.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#117394 Jul 9, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
JM he asked for a working definition of kind in the bible, he did not specify where, so i gave him one. now as the other ways kind is used, i don't follow the bible for i feel much of it is false but to try to answer your question the best i can after reading genesis 1, i would say it is man written so from their point of view maybe they are saying god made a cow for example and from then on he made more after its kind. we simply don’t know for much of the bible is written in ways that the words seem mixed up. what word should come first comes second or last. the bible is poorly written compared to today’s language but back in their day with their language it probably made perfect sense to them. the bible throughout the years i think has been poorly translated and if what it said was not understood, it was supplemented with what “they” thought it said.
anyways evolution with or without god is what has happened to life over the multitude of years. it is seen in the fossil record, the molecular biology, in all the evidence science has studied, repeatedly tested and put forth. hope this helps answer your question.
.
Can you give one example of how evolution has been tested?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117395 Jul 9, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Can you give one example of how evolution has been tested?
I could. So could others here. Do you realize how scientific testing is done?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#117396 Jul 9, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they are both facts. It may take a little more education to see that evolution is as well supported as gravity is. And I never ever said we understand both of them completely. It seems that you are projecting your inabilities to do science again. There is nothing wrong with saying that both are facts and in many ways evolution is better understood than gravity.
So another amazing loss by the Wabbit.
Do you have anything else?
.
<quoted text>
It may take a little more education to see that evolution is as well supported as gravity is.
.
The way I see it, gravity is observable to every person. It is quantifiable, and it is predictable where someone can actually test it. I don't see this in evolution. No one has ever observed one kind change into another kind even over thousands of years and millions of generations. I have never heard of a prediction (such as an eye will form over x amount of generations) that has been tested.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#117397 Jul 9, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I could. So could others here. Do you realize how scientific testing is done?
.
I don't need to realize how it is done. If you show me the test I can determine if it is a valid test.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117398 Jul 9, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
It may take a little more education to see that evolution is as well supported as gravity is.
.
The way I see it, gravity is observable to every person. It is quantifiable, and it is predictable where someone can actually test it. I don't see this in evolution. No one has ever observed one kind change into another kind even over thousands of years and millions of generations. I have never heard of a prediction (such as an eye will form over x amount of generations) that has been tested.
You are using an undefined term. What is a "kind". If you use nonsense terms you make a nonsense argument.

We have observed the evolution at all levels. Perhaps you do not understand what the word "observe" means either.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117399 Jul 9, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I don't need to realize how it is done. If you show me the test I can determine if it is a valid test.
Sorry, you have not shown that you have the ability to determine if a test is valid or not.

Once again, do you know how scientific testing is done?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#117400 Jul 9, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, you have not shown that you have the ability to determine if a test is valid or not.
Once again, do you know how scientific testing is done?
Seriously! After stating that no one has ever observed one kind change into another kind now he's an expert on testing. Too funny.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#117401 Jul 9, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Can you give one example of how evolution has been tested?
What for? You were given a few the last time you were here.

So the real question should be: Why are you asking for evidence you have NO interest in whatsoever?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#117402 Jul 9, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
It may take a little more education to see that evolution is as well supported as gravity is.
.
The way I see it, gravity is observable to every person. It is quantifiable, and it is predictable where someone can actually test it. I don't see this in evolution. No one has ever observed one kind change into another kind even over thousands of years and millions of generations. I have never heard of a prediction (such as an eye will form over x amount of generations) that has been tested.
You don't see this in evolution because you have no interest in it.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#117403 Jul 9, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I don't need to realize how it is done. If you show me the test I can determine if it is a valid test.
No you can't. You quite simply do NOT have the mental faculties to do so. Your approach to science is to be completely ignorant of a subject, read a bunch of poor arguments against the subject from apologists, turn up here and pretend you know more than we do (you don't) and know more than the entire scientific community does (you don't), get refuted as always, then wonder why nobody except uneducated fundies doesn't take you seriously.

If you're gonna start a whole scientific revolution by overturning the entirety of modern biology, here's a tip - don't jump in here and LIE to us from the get-go. ESPECIALLY when we have already given you what you asked for but you didn't bother to read it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117404 Jul 9, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously! After stating that no one has ever observed one kind change into another kind now he's an expert on testing. Too funny.
I know, that is why I have changed my tactics a bit when arguing with creationists. If you present evidence to them in any form they tend to reject it since they do not understand how events are observed. They do not understand what qualifies as evidence and why. That is why I insist that they learn the basics first. Otherwise we will just be spinning our wheels presenting irrefutable evidence while they simply deny it.

How do you "prove' that 2 + 2 = 4 to someone that denies that 1 + 1 = 2?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#117405 Jul 9, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You are using an undefined term. What is a "kind". If you use nonsense terms you make a nonsense argument.
We have observed the evolution at all levels. Perhaps you do not understand what the word "observe" means either.
.
You know as well as I do, that evolution requires a change from one kind to another. I will give you an example of kind. A feline will not produce a canine, or a marsupial. At some point a structural change has to occur. This requires a change in the genetic code.
.
So far no one has given an example which we have observed where a structural change has taken place (like dogs evolving retractable claws)
.
It seems to me evolutionists hide behind a tapestry of time where nothing is ever observed because it takes too much time to happen. It would seem to me that if a mammal was to evolve retractable claws this would not happen gradually like partially retractable claws. Not only that the structures involved are complex and many different parts have to work together. This is like saying I am going to evolve my car from drum brakes to disc brakes but I am not going to evolve the hydraulics, rotor, or caliper. All these things must happen simultaneously or we are going to have an accident.
.
Are you going to produce a test where evolution has been tested or not?
.
Are you going to give an example of an observed change in one kind to another or not.
.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#117406 Jul 9, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
What for? You were given a few the last time you were here.
So the real question should be: Why are you asking for evidence you have NO interest in whatsoever?
.
Then it should be easy for you to cut and paste the answer again, or have you forgotten it?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#117407 Jul 9, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, you have not shown that you have the ability to determine if a test is valid or not.
Once again, do you know how scientific testing is done?
.
Even if I concede that I cannot comprehend the test, you would still have the integrity to have actually shown a test.
.
As it stands right now, this seems like a ploy to not give an example which can be criticised, and remain in a position of making assertions.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#117408 Jul 9, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No you can't. You quite simply do NOT have the mental faculties to do so. Your approach to science is to be completely ignorant of a subject, read a bunch of poor arguments against the subject from apologists, turn up here and pretend you know more than we do (you don't) and know more than the entire scientific community does (you don't), get refuted as always, then wonder why nobody except uneducated fundies doesn't take you seriously.
If you're gonna start a whole scientific revolution by overturning the entirety of modern biology, here's a tip - don't jump in here and LIE to us from the get-go. ESPECIALLY when we have already given you what you asked for but you didn't bother to read it.
.
Can you reference a post where I have lied?

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117409 Jul 9, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Can you reference a post where I have lied?
Post #117405... first sentence is the FIRST lie of that post:

"You know as well as I do, that evolution requires a change from one kind to another"

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117410 Jul 9, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
You know as well as I do, that evolution requires a change from one kind to another. I will give you an example of kind. A feline will not produce a canine, or a marsupial. At some point a structural change has to occur. This requires a change in the genetic code.
No, evolution says no such thing. In fact the theory of evolution also says that no feline will produce a canine. Perhaps you should learn more about the theory that you are disputing. And you still do not have a working definition of "kind".
.
So far no one has given an example which we have observed where a structural change has taken place (like dogs evolving retractable claws)
Again, you first need to learn the basics. You have shown yourself to be ignorant more than once and I will not show you evidence until you learn what evidence is. Also since you do not understand scientific testing you must learn what that is. Neither lesson will take very long and they are interrelated.
.
It seems to me evolutionists hide behind a tapestry of time where nothing is ever observed because it takes too much time to happen. It would seem to me that if a mammal was to evolve retractable claws this would not happen gradually like partially retractable claws. Not only that the structures involved are complex and many different parts have to work together. This is like saying I am going to evolve my car from drum brakes to disc brakes but I am not going to evolve the hydraulics, rotor, or caliper. All these things must happen simultaneously or we are going to have an accident.
But evolution has been observed. Time is not a barrier for observation. And yes, partially retractable claws would be the route to developing fully retractable claws. I might even look into it. This evolution might be difficult to show since it would occur mainly in soft tissues that are not preserved. And no, evolutionary changes occur slowly on existing structures. Of course as part of evolution new structures are developed and evolve. You need to remember that one of the tools of genetic evolution is gene replication. Gene replication can allow for a structure to be built twice in the body. For example the number of vertebrae can be varied by simple mutations. That has even been observed in the laboratory. Once a structure is replicated the replicated structure can evolve while the original still carries out its purpose.

There are biologists that know far more about evolution than I do. But I can point out that at best you have only offered an argument from ignorance so far.
.
Are you going to produce a test where evolution has been tested or not?
.
As soon as you learn what a valid test is. You have already proved that you do not have such knowledge.
Are you going to give an example of an observed change in one kind to another or not.
.
Not until you come up with a working definition of "kind". I have a working definition of "kind" but it supports the theory of evolution. With my definition there are no changes in "kind" in evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117411 Jul 9, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Even if I concede that I cannot comprehend the test, you would still have the integrity to have actually shown a test.
No, you are making a unreasonable request. If you can't understand a test there is no point i me posting it. And remember in these debates it is always the creationist side that has been shown to be without integrity.
.
As it stands right now, this seems like a ploy to not give an example which can be criticised, and remain in a position of making assertions.
No, I would be more than happy to show you valid tests of evolution. I am not wasting my time on someone who will not bother to learn what evidence is and what is a valid test. Scientists have specific definitions because of clowns like creationists. There have been even that sort of scientist. The scientific method gives us specific definitions for what is a valid test and what is scientific evidence.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117412 Jul 9, 2014
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>
Post #117405... first sentence is the FIRST lie of that post:
"You know as well as I do, that evolution requires a change from one kind to another"
I am willing to be generous and call that an ignorant mistake.

Now what is amazing is how many creationists get outraged when someone points out that they are ignorant. We are all ignorant on certain topics. Of course that does not mean we cannot know something about other topics. Creationists seem to have the error ridden all or nothing mentality. Either their holy book is all true or it is all false. They can't seem to understand that some of it may be true, perhaps even some important parts, but that does not mean all of it is true. We know much of it is false.

Back to ignorance. Ignorance can always be cured by education. Education is the enemy of creationism. I have yet to meet an educated creationist. At least in regards to basic science.

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) 54 min DonnieTrump 227,398
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr CJ Rocker 35,385
Start a sentence in alphabetical order.. (Oct '16) 3 hr andet1987 4,352
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 3 hr andet1987 39,099
'Double Letter S' (Dec '12) 4 hr andet1987 1,410
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... (Nov '14) 4 hr wichita-rick 2,814
News POLL: Do you think Valentine's day is over-comm... (Feb '17) 4 hr Jack 7
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 5 hr quilterqueen 7,001
More from around the web