Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223384 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.

The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118012 Jul 14, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
to make this short since you just said basically blah blah blah.
your definition of what a detrimental mutation is, is irrelevant. there are many detrimental mutations and it is what science says the definition of detrimental mutations are that matters.
Hey man, if what science says is all that matters then science says evolution is right and creationism is bullshite. So thanks again for another post that proves my point.(shrug)
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118013 Jul 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
(Evolution does not claim a change of kinds)..
It certainly does. We started out as a single celled organisms. Though time we evolved into vertebrates, more time and we emerged from the seas. This requires a change in kind. Before we were primates we were something else as primates didn't exist 65 million years ago (according to evolutionists).
Biology does not use the word "kinds".
Hence, evolution does not claim a change in "kinds".
"Kinds" is an oblivious, superficial and useless vehicle.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not really "new structures". They are merely changes in already existing structures
When we observe the deepest layers in the geological record, we only observe single celled organisms. When we ascend in the geological column, life becomes multi cellular and then ever more complex. I recall this having said SEVERAL TIMES before and you JUST IGNORE IT.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
What changed in the single celled organism that had no means of sight to develop an eye from a structure that wasn't there?
Many bacteria have pockets of light sensitive molecules on their membranes. These are biochemically very related to chlorophyll, the molecule engaged in sunlight harvesting in plants. It needs only some rather minor mutations to get from those to light sensitive molecules.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone here used an example of a fish fossil found in Arctic Canada which had a leg in the area of the gills. What structure was there before?
It had no legs in the area of its gills. It had four very primitive legs on the spots where fish have fins. Before that we have bony fish with both gills and lungs. They had sturdy bony fins, able to crawl both the land and floors of pools and ponds. They most likely went on shore for some time, using their lungs. In the water they used their gills.

Before those we had fish with lungs and gills and pretty sturdy fins who crawled the floors of the pools and ponds they lived in.

Modern amphibians still have retained some of these traits: as tadpoles, frogs are like fish and only have gills. When they mature, they grow legs and lungs. Like all other extant species, they have evolution written all over their bodies.

Before those we had bony fish that only swam and had gills and a swimming bladder.

Of all those intermediates we have SEVERAL specimen found and even several species.
In the realm of the jump from water to land there are no missing links any more.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
P.S. None of this has been observed or tested. That would be the difference between science and science fiction.
wondering

Morris, OK

#118014 Jul 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey man, if what science says is all that matters then science says evolution is right and creationism is bullshite. So thanks again for another post that proves my point.(shrug)
hey jack wagon i have never said evolution is wrong. i support evolution. so suck on that (shrug)

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#118016 Jul 14, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
My Bible does not mention 6,000 years. Please cite the Chapter and Verse in your Bible that says 6,000 years.
Your bible didn't mention 6,000 years? You aint got a talking bible, i can sell you a talking bible all you need to do us send me 3 easy payments of 39.95 and you will have your very own talking bible.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#118017 Jul 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
You have not provided evidence of a change between kinds. What you have provided is a change within a kind. This doesn't support that new structures can form like wings. This is an assumption on your part. I don't even see where you have ruled out (by scientific methods) that the ability to change isn't due to already existing cell nucleus material.
Fish to lizard for starters...

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#118018 Jul 14, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
to make this short since you just said basically blah blah blah.
your definition of what a detrimental mutation is, is irrelevant. there are many detrimental mutations and it is what science says the definition of detrimental mutations are that matters.

???? Dude's post IS what science says. Didn't you know that.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#118019 Jul 14, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
My Bible does not mention 6,000 years. Please cite the Chapter and Verse in your Bible that says 6,000 years.

You have to do the math yourself.
wondering

Morris, OK

#118020 Jul 14, 2014
don't be a coward. answer his question of "My Bible does not mention 6,000 years. Please cite the Chapter and Verse in your Bible that says 6,000 years". he did not ask too much of you. it was a simple question.

you have to remember when something is written does not mean that is when it happened.

answer his question or take your self thought to be the thread and forum psychiatrist jackass wagon some where else.
wondering

Morris, OK

#118021 Jul 14, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to do the math yourself.
this post as was to you. so lets try it again.

don't be a coward. answer his question of "My Bible does not mention 6,000 years. Please cite the Chapter and Verse in your Bible that says 6,000 years". he did not ask too much of you. it was a simple question.

you have to remember when something is written does not mean that is when it happened.

answer his question or take your self thought to be the thread and forum psychiatrist jackass wagon some where else.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118023 Jul 14, 2014
wondering wrote:
don't be a coward. answer his question of "My Bible does not mention 6,000 years. Please cite the Chapter and Verse in your Bible that says 6,000 years". he did not ask too much of you. it was a simple question.
you have to remember when something is written does not mean that is when it happened.
answer his question or take your self thought to be the thread and forum psychiatrist jackass wagon some where else.
Any semi-literate person knows of the work of Ussher. He used the genealogies of the Bible to get a date that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronolog...

In fact he got it down to the day:

" Ussher deduced that the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox."

Other scholars have gotten similar, but different dates. All say roughly 4,000 BC.
wondering

Morris, OK

#118024 Jul 14, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Any semi-literate person knows of the work of Ussher. He used the genealogies of the Bible to get a date that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronolog...
In fact he got it down to the day:
" Ussher deduced that the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox."
Other scholars have gotten similar, but different dates. All say roughly 4,000 BC.
did ussher write the bible, or was he there when it was written, or could he translate the bible to what it meant exactly. that would be no. he is doing what all have done since the day the bible was written. the are making guesses and poor translations. like it or not those or facts.

we will never know exactly what the bible says or what and when it was talking about. those that have written it are and forever gone. accepting that is the first understanding of the bible.
wondering

Morris, OK

#118025 Jul 14, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Any semi-literate person knows of the work of Ussher. He used the genealogies of the Bible to get a date that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronolog...
In fact he got it down to the day:
" Ussher deduced that the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox."
Other scholars have gotten similar, but different dates. All say roughly 4,000 BC.
here is the bible in hebrew. we can take it as well translated or we can take it as we really have no clue, but was done to what they thought it said to their understanding of what they wanted it to say.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118026 Jul 14, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
did ussher write the bible, or was he there when it was written, or could he translate the bible to what it meant exactly. that would be no. he is doing what all have done since the day the bible was written. the are making guesses and poor translations. like it or not those or facts.
we will never know exactly what the bible says or what and when it was talking about. those that have written it are and forever gone. accepting that is the first understanding of the bible.
You need to clean up your language yourself.

Though I don't agree with Ussher in the least what he did was to try to use the best translation at that time and the figures given in that translation to get a date based upon the Bible. Though others, include Isaac Newton, tried to do the same and came up with a very similar date. The fact that several independent sources all came up with a roughly similar date showed that none of them were terribly wrong, at least as far as the Bible is concerned.
wondering

Morris, OK

#118028 Jul 14, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to clean up your language yourself.
Though I don't agree with Ussher in the least what he did was to try to use the best translation at that time and the figures given in that translation to get a date based upon the Bible. Though others, include Isaac Newton, tried to do the same and came up with a very similar date. The fact that several independent sources all came up with a roughly similar date showed that none of them were terribly wrong, at least as far as the Bible is concerned.
"The fact that several independent sources all came up with a roughly similar date showed that none of them were terribly wrong, at least as far as the Bible is concerned"

and they all read what was priorly said before they tried. what do you do if you are stuck,, you improvise and just go with what has been priorly said. as i said we will never know what the words of the bible actually mean.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#118029 Jul 14, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to clean up your language yourself.
Though I don't agree with Ussher in the least what he did was to try to use the best translation at that time and the figures given in that translation to get a date based upon the Bible. Though others, include Isaac Newton, tried to do the same and came up with a very similar date. The fact that several independent sources all came up with a roughly similar date showed that none of them were terribly wrong, at least as far as the Bible is concerned.
I agree. The different attempts to determine the age of the earth using information from the Bible were consistent. The evidence of science shows that they were far from right.
wondering

Morris, OK

#118030 Jul 14, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I agree. The different attempts to determine the age of the earth using information from the Bible were consistent. The evidence of science shows that they were far from right.
you fail to add to your comment the "information" form the bible has been poorly translated and the language has never been fully understood. so how accurate or consistant are they in anything they have tried?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118031 Jul 14, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you fail to add to your comment the "information" form the bible has been poorly translated and the language has never been fully understood. so how accurate or consistant are they in anything they have tried?
Our interpretations of the Bible seem to be fairly accurate. The problem is with present day people trying to twist the words to make the Bible perfect. Isaiah clearly describes a flat Earth if you read the translation as written. It also describes a flat Earth if you go to the original. Once again zealots want the Bible to be perfect even though it can never be so.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#118032 Jul 14, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you fail to add to your comment the "information" form the bible has been poorly translated and the language has never been fully understood. so how accurate or consistant are they in anything they have tried?
They are consistent based on what they had as an available source of information. Your point makes no sense. I didn't fail to mention anything. There isn't any more to mention. They are consistent, but the evidence shows them wrong. You got anything better you have rolled it out. You are just being contrary, which is your usual go to position when you have run out of argument.
wondering

Morris, OK

#118033 Jul 14, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>They are consistent based on what they had as an available source of information. Your point makes no sense. I didn't fail to mention anything. There isn't any more to mention. They are consistent, but the evidence shows them wrong. You got anything better you have rolled it out. You are just being contrary, which is your usual go to position when you have run out of argument.
last comment on this dead topic.
1. how much of the bible has been translated 100% accurate?
2. the available source of information about the bible was based off what?,,, the poor translations.
3. they were consistent with what others said for they read what others said before they started. so to change anything that had been translated prior they would have to had to back it up with evidence they did not have and could not produce so they just went with the flow.
3. me run out of an argument. that again is your mistake. i am not here to argue as your are.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118034 Jul 14, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
last comment on this dead topic.
1. how much of the bible has been translated 100% accurate?
A foolish and ridiculous demand. All that is really needed is a reasonably accurate translation and we have that.
2. the available source of information about the bible was based off what?,,, the poor translations.
You have yet to show the translations were poor. Your argument is going from bad to worse.
3. they were consistent with what others said for they read what others said before they started. so to change anything that had been translated prior they would have to had to back it up with evidence they did not have and could not produce so they just went with the flow.
No, they were consistent with others that read the same reasonably accurate translation and came up with the same incorrect date. All that shows is that the Bible is not to be trusted when it comes to science.
3. me run out of an argument. that again is your mistake. i am not here to argue as your are.
Yes, you are a troll. We all know that already.

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 Human Evolution 5 min Lactose Tolerant 44
Hurricane Maria likely God's punishment on Puer... 14 min Lactose Tolerant 3
News SCOTUS Rules Against Wisconsin Democrats On Red... 21 min North Mountain 6
Add a Word remove a Word (Oct '13) 22 min _Blue Bird_ 6,793
any word you want to say (Dec '09) 23 min North Mountain 8,973
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 28 min North Mountain 151,870
Is Time Travel actually Possible? (Feb '13) 30 min North Mountain 176
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 9 hr wichita-rick 231,388
News Bizarre robbery ended with sex act as an 'examp... 13 hr Christshariahns 13