Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 218832 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.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118978 Jul 27, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
First off to call them errors in the bible you have to show that the bible was/is 100% accurately translated. When you show me that then we will discuss any errors there may be. For all you really know the errors could be in the translations of the bible.
If you translate an error correctly, it is still an error. If you intentionally reword, re-interpret and erroneously translate from an original so that you can say it's accurate, you are dishonest.

“Denny Crain”

Level 8

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#118979 Jul 27, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>Yep, we're still hard at it. Still don't see any RatAlope mutations coming from their side either....;)
We have Jackalope here in Texas :) No season or limit on them either. They are as bad as our hog problem :)

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118980 Jul 27, 2014
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
I think its Inevitable that genetic engineering will be used to alter the human genome. The potential benefits in medicine alone are impossible to ignore. There will also probably be attempts to engineer better athletes, soldiers, scientists, ect, which is why it should be tightly regulated by governments all over the world.
You can buy genes online now to study how they work when inserted into a genome. Not only genes that have evolved naturally but engineered genes that never existed in nature.
https://www.gen9bio.com/why-gen9/price/
I understand your point and it is true that no one in 1900 would have predicted the world of 1950. Time will tell. At this moment, it is considered ethically and morally unacceptable to tinker with the human genome to produce a genetically modified "custom" human. Personally, I don't see that changing in the near future to the degree you speculate. In a side issue, there might well come a time when patents for your own sequences or those you wish/need for your offspring are owned by corporations.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#118981 Jul 27, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so since science re-writes the books every few years it is better than a book that has not been re-written in 4500+ years? Did you ever think that it does not need re-written because it is not wrong, but needs to be better understood?
In your quest for 'understanding' let's start with the fact that the oldest books of the Hebrew Bible were written no more than 2800 years ago.
THE LONE WORKER

United States

#118982 Jul 27, 2014
Denny CranesPlace wrote:
<quoted text> We have Jackalope here in Texas :) No season or limit on them either. They are as bad as our hog problem :)
Yeah, there's only one thing that would be worse than them pesky rascals, and that would be a BIG ugly Ratalope.:-)
Bill

Owensboro, KY

#118983 Jul 27, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand your point and it is true that no one in 1900 would have predicted the world of 1950. Time will tell. At this moment, it is considered ethically and morally unacceptable to tinker with the human genome to produce a genetically modified "custom" human. Personally, I don't see that changing in the near future to the degree you speculate. In a side issue, there might well come a time when patents for your own sequences or those you wish/need for your offspring are owned by corporations.
It's illegal in many countries to alter the human genome (if those changes will passed to offspring) for good reason, because not enough has been learned about how genes function. But there are thousands if not millions of scientists working in genetics and they are learning more every day. I don't think it's a matter of "if" but "when". The advances being made in computing also helps the genetic engineering field
Bill

Owensboro, KY

#118984 Jul 27, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>there might well come a time when patents for your own sequences or those you wish/need for your offspring are owned by corporations.
I don't think naturally occurring genes can be patented but genetically engineered genes can? Probably still a grey area of law

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#118985 Jul 27, 2014
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think naturally occurring genes can be patented but genetically engineered genes can? Probably still a grey area of law
You can't patent someone else's DNA, the process for extracting and splicing it can be. If some is artificial , that could be patented.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118986 Jul 27, 2014
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think naturally occurring genes can be patented but genetically engineered genes can? Probably still a grey area of law
There are many patented pharmaceuticals that were discovered in naturally occurring sources.
The tomato plant can't be patented but a strain of tomato plant that was produced simply by cross pollination can. Any unique describable set or string might be subject to intellectual property laws.
Bill

Owensboro, KY

#118987 Jul 27, 2014
The US supreme court has ruled unanimously that natural human genes cannot be patented, a decision that scientists and civil rights campaigners said removed a major barrier to patient care and medical innovation.

The court on Thursday held that human DNA was a "product of nature", a basic tool of scientific and technological work, thereby placing it beyond the domain of patent protection. It struck down patents held by Myriad Genetics Inc, a Utah company, on two genes linked to a higher risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

But it also said that synthetic genetic material could be patented, in a mixed ruling for the biotechnology industry, which has argued that patents are necessary to recoup the billions of dollars it spends on research.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jun/13/su...

Probably still a lot of laws that need to be passed regulating genetic engineering

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118988 Jul 27, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You can't patent someone else's DNA, the process for extracting and splicing it can be. If some is artificial , that could be patented.
A recent ruling was made that human genes cannot be patented, however it might still be legally argued that what does not meet the clinical definition of "a gene" is by definition a chemical and that specific chemicals can be patented.
Perhaps I'm way off base. I don't trust corporate lawyers one way or the other.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#118990 Jul 27, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
A recent ruling was made that human genes cannot be patented, however it might still be legally argued that what does not meet the clinical definition of "a gene" is by definition a chemical and that specific chemicals can be patented.
Perhaps I'm way off base. I don't trust corporate lawyers one way or the other.

On this we are in perfect agreement, lawyers are in it to get money, there are some of them that will do anything for it.
Bill

Owensboro, KY

#118991 Jul 27, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You can't patent someone else's DNA, the process for extracting and splicing it can be. If some is artificial , that could be patented.
I guess existing law puts the big research money in synthetic biology, since that can be patented, and the research money possibly recouped. However its unlikely that a company will completely synthesize a useful gene, but will probably make small changes to a gene that exists in nature. So the research in natural genes will probably be done anyway. But current law still favors synthetic genes?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#118992 Jul 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
It can be show that most Christians know that the book of Genesis is a myth.
Subduction Zone wrote:
...there are various polls that show in the U.S. that about half of Christians take the Genesis myth seriously.
Subduction Zone wrote:
But the U.S. is not the world.
Subduction Zone wrote:
You can see from THIS link that acceptance of evolution is much greater elsewhere than it is here...
But the acceptance of evolution does not imply the genesis is mythology.

The acceptance of evolution by itself is just that; the agreement that an idea is valid.

And at ANY point where evolution and genesis agree, they may both be accepted as valid; maybe even equally valid.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#118993 Jul 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, this is not an question that can be answered with empirical evidence.
On what then will you base your assertions and conclusions?

By what means will you assert and conclude anything without evidence?
Subduction Zone wrote:
You should know when you use empirical evidence and when you don't.
I do know when I use it and when I dont.

But you should know when empirical evidence is reliable and when it is not.
Subduction Zone wrote:
The God of the Bible is condemned by the very book that was supposedly written by him.
I can see that you have not read your Bible, or at the very least you have not understood it.
If you actually believed that, you would not be playing around.

If you have actually read the Bible and can show a case where "The God of the Bible is condemned by the very book that was supposedly written by him", then why did it not accompany your claim?

How do you justify your agnosticism or atheism or whatever you call it?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118994 Jul 27, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
But the acceptance of evolution does not imply the genesis is mythology.
It depends on how literal you take the book of Genesis. Most creationists are YEC's and in their eyes accepting evolution would debunk their personal version of Genesis. Now you may be able to reinterpret Genesis in a fashion that allows for evolution. Though not even the order of appearance of life is correct, it can be said to be close. The Flood is still a huge problem since it never happened. A local flood could be the basis of the myth, but the saving of animals was not necessary and mankind was not wiped out. The same applies to the tower of Babel myth. You would be hard pressed to find anything of factual value in Genesis at all.
The acceptance of evolution by itself is just that; the agreement that an idea is valid.
And at ANY point where evolution and genesis agree, they may both be accepted as valid; maybe even equally valid.
How about the many places that reality disagrees with Genesis?

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#118995 Jul 27, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
But the acceptance of evolution does not imply the genesis is mythology.
The acceptance of evolution by itself is just that; the agreement that an idea is valid.
And at ANY point where evolution and genesis agree, they may both be accepted as valid; maybe even equally valid.
You have to be a complete buffoon, to think the genesis story has any semblance to what actually happened.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#118996 Jul 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Your God is a myth. A myth cannot have any science. The phrase "magic of evolution" that you claim Dawkins made was merely figurative.
Your evolution is magic. A magic cannot have any science. The phrase " Science of God" that you claim not possible was merely figurative.
Subduction Zone wrote:
I know, creatards don't know the difference between figurative and literal and that is part of the reason that they are creatards in the first place.
I know, evotards don't know the difference between figurative and literal and that is part of the reason that they are evotards in the first place

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#118997 Jul 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It depends upon how you define God. There have been thousands, if not millions of gods over man's history on Earth. At most only one of them can be right, but all of them can be wrong.
Science is not in trouble because it has a self correcting methodology. Your myth lacks that.
How do you correct for errors in the Bible?
Why dont you ask me those questions?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118998 Jul 27, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Your evolution is magic. A magic cannot have any science. The phrase " Science of God" that you claim not possible was merely figurative.
<quoted text>
I know, evotards don't know the difference between figurative and literal and that is part of the reason that they are evotards in the first place
No, we can demonstrate the science behind the theory of evolution. That is why it is accepted by .... scientists and why creationism is not accepted by scientists. Yes, you can drag up a small collection of nuts that do not accept evolution, but they are the rare exception.

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
Name an item game 3 min andet1987 729
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 5 min Luckys mom Beffy 68,549
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 6 min andet1987 32,419
News Thousands of demonstrators protest Trump in Atl... 8 min Aquarius-wy 94
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 9 min LoverBoy 210,050
What Turns You Off? 14 min liam cul8r 152
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 18 min andet1987 6,166
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 56 min visitor 2,762
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 2 hr positronium 20,748
More from around the web