Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 199175 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.

pale horse of death

Los Angeles, CA

#119407 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
SURE you are.
BTW, about WHAT?
I am enlightened as to the complete process by which, over a very long time, one species could possibly arise from another through the process of natural selection.
Look friends, i'm no university professor TO BE SURE, but I have an excellent understanding of science and technology, and have a very clear understanding of the scientific process.
I ALSO have a deep reverence for it! Even if only for science's eternal will to find the truth
of our existence.
My spiritual existence need never to go any further on this forum thread
than the above last statements.
Thank you again folks!
You have made a difference - an improvement - in my life,
as it should be.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#119408 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you please provide any ANSWERS to my QUESTIONS please?
WHERE CAN I FIND THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR YOUR POSITION?
No need to shout, turkey boy. Why would you assume (your interpretation of) scientific evidence is the only evidence there is? Is not recorded history evidence? If you have multiple accounts of an ancient flood where one family makes it through on a boat, is that not evidence of the event in question from history. Multiple accounts provide weight to the event in question? Are these not the ancients understanding of a event which predated their writings?

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#119409 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the modern concept is merely not to solely stare at "species" by trying to force each fossil into one particular species but to study the evolutionary development in traits and phenotype as such instead. Biologists like Richard Dawkins are not concerning about whether Habilis was in the Pithecus or in the Hominid genus. they just don't care. The only thing they are interested in are its traits and its chronological place in the course of hominid evolution. The only things he is interested in, are:
- its ~610 cc cranial volume, larger than Australopithecus but smaller than Erectus
- its rather long arms but not as long as Australopithecus and shorter than Erectus
- its protruding muzzle but not that protruding like Australopithecus but less than Erectus
- its rather large molars and teeth but smaller than those of Australopithecus and larger than Erectus
- etc. other traits of its phenotype that perfectly fit an intermediate position between Australopithecus and Erectus
- its chronological place in the time-line of human evolution exactly between Australopithecus and Erectus (with some overlap with Erectus).
I notice that your first link to archaic humans refers to Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and also Homo antecessor.
That fits my assessment when I said that scientifically spoken it would be more convenient to confine "human" only to home Sapiens. These include all species mentioned in your list:
- homo Sapiens Sapiens (that will be us)
- homo Sapiens Heidelbergensis, homo Sapiens Rhodesiensis, homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis
- and may also include Homo antecessor.
Notice that homo Erectus and homo Habilis are not mentioned on the link.
This also applies to your second link, where it reads: "Most paleoanthropologists agree that Homo erectus and H. sapiens are distinct species".
I could agree with the assessments on both links.
The trend is however that humans are more than just the current dominate species of Earth and that other humans did in fact exist, they were just a different kinds of humans.
Leading up to us.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119411 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> No need to shout, turkey boy. Why would you assume (your interpretation of) scientific evidence is the only evidence there is? Is not recorded history evidence? If you have multiple accounts of an ancient flood where one family makes it through on a boat, is that not evidence of the event in question from history. Multiple accounts provide weight to the event in question? Are these not the ancients understanding of a event which predated their writings?
There is no need to shout because you won't and can't provide supporting evidence for Genesis either way.
Written accounts which vary greatly both in general and in detail are not evidence of a global catastrophe which has left no geological evidence. Local floods happen. The Noachian flood as described clearly did not.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#119412 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> No need to shout, turkey boy. Why would you assume (your interpretation of) scientific evidence is the only evidence there is? Is not recorded history evidence? If you have multiple accounts of an ancient flood where one family makes it through on a boat, is that not evidence of the event in question from history. Multiple accounts provide weight to the event in question? Are these not the ancients understanding of a event which predated their writings?
An interpretation is not evidence.

The historical evidence for floods in some societies predates the biblical account of the flood and the biblical account is a monotheistic copy of previous polytheistic versions. Not all cultures have flood stories that mirror the biblical story. The stories from Chinese culture of the time refer to localized flooding when they mention flooding. All these stories do is reaffirm the fact that floods were an important part of ancient cultures and largely because they were centered in flood plains. Who would have guessed.

Repeating a story spread by commerce and other contact through different cultures does not make it true. The fact that it is a LATER Hebrew version that is archived in the Bible only weakens your case and does not strengthen it. And as I said, the story spread through cultural contact and ends where that contact does.

Further there is a large body of evidence that don't support a global flood and more evidence that indicates that such a flood isn't even possible. You add to that the questions that arise from the biblical narrative that creationists can't answer and simply ignore, you have an insurmountable hurdle to suggest this story is more than allegory.

Your assertions that science-minded people think the people would stupid because they didn't have the understanding of the world that many today do is just a record of your bias. No one outside of fundies and other science deniers have said that or made that claim. All that has been said is that based on their views of the world, member of ancient cultures were ignorant of the world around them. On a whole, they attributed unsupported, supernatural causes to all the phenomena they experienced.

BTW. If you are going to post someone else's words, it would be good form to state who it is and where you got it. Simply stating "not mine" adds a patina of questionable credibility.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#119413 Aug 3, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>An interpretation is not evidence.
Agree. An interpretation is a conclusion.
The historical evidence for floods in some societies predates the biblical account of the flood and the biblical account is a monotheistic copy of previous polytheistic versions.
An interpretation is not evidence. Either is an assumption without evidence. Where is your evidence the biblical account was copied? Moses had sources. Educated in Egypt and spent time with Biblical God. Either or both could be a source.
Not all cultures have flood stories that mirror the biblical story.
And if they did you would argue collusion. Evidence can be rejected for any reason. Variations are rejected because they do not jibe in every detail. If the accounts are all the same then there is collusion. Its like finding two fingerprints at a crime scene and rejecting them both because they are not the same. Even if they are not the same, it is still evidence two different people were there at one time or another. In investigation evidence is not thrown out if one is seeking the truth.
And as I said, the story spread through cultural contact and ends where that contact does.
That is a theory in search of a fact.
Further there is a large body of evidence that don't support a global flood and more evidence that indicates that such a flood isn't even possible. You add to that the questions that arise from the biblical narrative that creationists can't answer and simply ignore, you have an insurmountable hurdle to suggest this story is more than allegory.
Creationist have answers. All you have to do is search their sites.
Your assertions that science-minded people think the people would stupid because they didn't have the understanding of the world that many today do is just a record of your bias.
That sentence does not make sense so i think you mean the moderns assume the ancients could not tell fact from fiction. I give the ancients, including the kings of Europe, the benefit of the doubt. You, on the other hand assume they are all wrong. Just like your camp assumed the David Kingdom was a credible as King Arthur and were proven wrong. Why don't you own up to your mistakes instead of lame attempts to shift blame?
No one outside of fundies and other science deniers have said that or made that claim. All that has been said is that based on their views of the world, member of ancient cultures were ignorant of the world around them. On a whole, they attributed unsupported, supernatural causes to all the phenomena they experienced.
Right and you know better with your metaphysical prejudices. Nothing supernatural at all places at all times. Do you believe in abiogenesis? Everything is here by accident or for no reason? Intelligence and life are by-products of non intelligence and non life? Where is the hard science in that? Where is the logic?
BTW. If you are going to post someone else's words, it would be good form to state who it is and where you got it. Simply stating "not mine" adds a patina of questionable credibility.
It is easy enough to find. If you knew anything about investigation on a computer. I am not going to hand it to you on a silver spoon.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119414 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> No need to shout, turkey boy. Why would you assume (your interpretation of) scientific evidence is the only evidence there is? Is not recorded history evidence? If you have multiple accounts of an ancient flood where one family makes it through on a boat, is that not evidence of the event in question from history. Multiple accounts provide weight to the event in question? Are these not the ancients understanding of a event which predated their writings?
I didn't shout, I just used capitals because you apparently are not able to read properly when using underscore.

Also the historic evidence makes mishmash of your bronze age mythology stories.

No, I don't take evidence form mythology books.

I only accept scientific evidence.
Are you implying then that a worldwide flood would not leave any geological traces then?
Hence, I need geological evidence INDEED.

And if you are not able to deliver it, there WAS NO WORLDWIDE FLOOD. Just as simple.

Otherwise, it is just a myth from the many myths written in the bronze age by the many bronze age people. We have a bunch of books of these: Gilgamesh Epic, Upanishads, Rig Vedas, Greek Mythology etc.

Many of them even older than the bible.
All filled to the brim with "stories" and "accounts" of "ancients" who experienced all kinds of "events which predated their writings".

You are not relying on evidence but on revelation.

Hence the question again: WHERE is you EVIDENCE?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119415 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> An interpretation is not evidence. Either is an assumption without evidence. Where is your evidence the biblical account was copied?
Moses had sources. Educated in Egypt and spent time with Biblical God. Either or both could be a source.
There is an almost identical version of the flood in Gilgamesh Epic. Only the name Noah is not mentioned but Utnapishtim. It was on its turn probably copied from the older Atra-Hasis Epic. Both flood stories pre-date the biblical account. We also historically know that the Jews were in Babylonia, where both Epics originated. hence we have:
- 2 almost identical renditions of the biblical flood story in other bronze age mythology accounts
- those 2 versions pre-date the biblical one
- the writers of the biblical account, the Jews, were in Mesopotamia on a moment when the flood accounts of the 2 Epics already existed.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
And if they did you would argue collusion. Evidence can be rejected for any reason. Variations are rejected because they do not jibe in every detail. If the accounts are all the same then there is collusion. Its like finding two fingerprints at a crime scene and rejecting them both because they are not the same. Even if they are not the same, it is still evidence two different people were there at one time or another. In investigation evidence is not thrown out if one is seeking the truth.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Much word spaghetti. Your whole argument here relies on the presumption you made in the beginning "if they did...". They didn't. Hence, not all cultures have flood stories that mirror the biblical story. Period. Local floods happen all the time everywhere in all eras of planet earth. Of THOSE floods we have ABUNDANT geological evidence. When floods are severe and inundate all the land you know, for a bronze age mind this would appear to be a "worldwide" flood. Because it affects the WHOLE world HE knows. And its devastations would appeal to his emotions and mental experiences. He would think it were the wrath of god, punishing him for his mischief. That's how bronze age minds work. They lack scientific knowledge and everything from nature that causes pain, misery and disaster, MUST come from god.

[QUOTE who="lightbeamrider" ]<quoted text>
Just like your camp assumed the David Kingdom was a credible as King Arthur and were proven wrong. Why don't you own up to your mistakes instead of lame attempts to shift blame?
EXACTLY. The story from Arthur also comes from ancients who wrote stories that were known by all kings of Europe.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe in abiogenesis? Everything is here by accident or for no reason? Intelligence and life are by-products of non intelligence and non life? Where is the hard science in that? Where is the logic?
"It is easy enough to find. If you knew anything about investigation on a computer. I am not going to hand it to you on a silver spoon."
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
It is easy enough to find. If you knew anything about investigation on a computer. I am not going to hand it to you on a silver spoon.
If YOU are making a claim, YOU provide. Never heard of decent debate?
WHAT AN ARROGANCE: "I claim, YOU look for MY evidence".
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119416 Aug 3, 2014
Sorry, something went wrong with my previous post.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> An interpretation is not evidence. Either is an assumption without evidence. Where is your evidence the biblical account was copied?
Moses had sources. Educated in Egypt and spent time with Biblical God. Either or both could be a source.
There is an almost identical version of the flood in Gilgamesh Epic. Only the name Noah is not mentioned but Utnapishtim. It was on its turn probably copied from the older Atra-Hasis Epic. Both flood stories pre-date the biblical account. We also historically know that the Jews were in Babylonia, where both Epics originated. hence we have:
- 2 almost identical renditions of the biblical flood story in other bronze age mythology accounts
- those 2 versions pre-date the biblical one
- the writers of the biblical account, the Jews, were in Mesopotamia on a moment when the flood accounts of the 2 Epics already existed.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
And if they did you would argue collusion. Evidence can be rejected for any reason. Variations are rejected because they do not jibe in every detail. If the accounts are all the same then there is collusion. Its like finding two fingerprints at a crime scene and rejecting them both because they are not the same. Even if they are not the same, it is still evidence two different people were there at one time or another. In investigation evidence is not thrown out if one is seeking the truth.
Much word spaghetti. Your whole argument here relies on the presumption you made in the beginning "if they did...". They didn't. Hence, not all cultures have flood stories that mirror the biblical story. Period. Local floods happen all the time everywhere in all eras of planet earth. Of THOSE floods we have ABUNDANT geological evidence. When floods are severe and inundate all the land you know, for a bronze age mind this would appear to be a "worldwide" flood. Because it affects the WHOLE world HE knows. And its devastations would appeal to his emotions and mental experiences. He would think it were the wrath of god, punishing him for his mischief. That's how bronze age minds work. They lack scientific knowledge and everything from nature that causes pain, misery and disaster, MUST come from god.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like your camp assumed the David Kingdom was a credible as King Arthur and were proven wrong. Why don't you own up to your mistakes instead of lame attempts to shift blame?
EXACTLY. The story from Arthur also comes from ancients who wrote stories that were known by all kings of Europe.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe in abiogenesis? Everything is here by accident or for no reason? Intelligence and life are by-products of non intelligence and non life? Where is the hard science in that? Where is the logic?
"It is easy enough to find. If you knew anything about investigation on a computer. I am not going to hand it to you on a silver spoon."
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
It is easy enough to find. If you knew anything about investigation on a computer. I am not going to hand it to you on a silver spoon.
If YOU are making a claim, YOU provide. Never heard of decent debate?
WHAT AN ARROGANCE: "I claim, YOU look for MY evidence".
wondering

Morris, OK

#119417 Aug 3, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
finding a new species, as your post on the legless lizard, or reclassifying a species to a new one as the dolphin is not a species changing to be another species. we have been studying animals pretty well for 200-300 hundred years and have not seen one species change to become a new species.

they find many new species daily. in 2006 they averaged 50 new species per day. 16,969 species were discovered in 2006 according to a report compiled by Arizona State University's International Institute for Species Exploration, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the International Plant Names Index, and Thompson Scientific.

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0527-species.ht...

either evolution is on a speed track or they have always been here but just not know of at the time.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119418 Aug 3, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Tragopogon,(also known as salsify or goatsbeard) has split into at least one new species in the Americas since its introduction from Europe.
yes hybrids. two species interacting producing a hybrid (like the donkey and horse= the mule) is not considered seeing a species change into a new species.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#119419 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
I didn't shout, I just used capitals because you apparently are not able to read properly when using underscore.
Caps is shouting in computer speak.
Also the historic evidence makes mishmash of your bronze age mythology stories.
No, I don't take evidence form mythology books.
What historic evidence? You have not produced any. You mean the Bible which is compiled writings from the ancients? That is a prime example of confirmation bias which rejects evidence which does not fit their assumptions. It is the same reason the moderns rejected historical Jesus and David. Both are established from history and both have genealogies which go back through Noah to Adam. So 500 years ago, two thousand years ago and three thousand + years ago you have multiple sourced recorded history validating Noah and Adam. From the time of David.is about 2500 years ago. 1 Chr. 1. Nothing which refutes.
Like most you are no doubt biblically illiterate. Two things the Bible was right on and the moderns were wrong on. Jesus and David as historical. Both come from the Bible.
I only accept scientific evidence.
You mean you only accept evidence which validates your assumptions.
Are you implying then that a worldwide flood would not leave any geological traces then?
If it did we would not hear it from folks like you. So you trash all existing written evidence for evidence which only a handful sill understand. Why believe them when they were wrong on David and Jesus?
Hence, I need geological evidence INDEED.
And if you are not able to deliver it, there WAS NO WORLDWIDE FLOOD. Just as simple.
Otherwise, it is just a myth from the many myths written in the bronze age by the many bronze age people. We have a bunch of books of these: Gilgamesh Epic, Upanishads, Rig Vedas, Greek Mythology etc.
Yeah you have multiple accounts and you dismiss it all as myth.
Many of them even older than the bible.
All filled to the brim with "stories" and "accounts" of "ancients" who experienced all kinds of "events which predated their writings".
You are not relying on evidence but on revelation.
Hence the question again: WHERE is you EVIDENCE?
I gave you the evidence from history. You rejected because of metaphysical prejudice and confirmation bias. You are up against two heavy hitters. Jesus and Moses. Josephus and Philo. All these are wrong and you are right?

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/sci...

Got to go to Creation Scientists because all others ignore or explain away evidence which does not fit their assumptions. Soft tissue in 65 million year dino bones.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#119420 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Agree. An interpretation is a conclusion.
Yet you called interpretation evidence in a previous post.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119421 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
yes hybrids. two species interacting producing a hybrid (like the donkey and horse= the mule) is not considered seeing a species change into a new species.
That is NOT true.

See http://scienceblogs.com/observations/2010/10/... .

Where I quote: "But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren’t sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species – the classic definition of a new species". Goatsbeard is the common name for Tragopogon.

Here are others factual observations of speciation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_comm... . Next, there are observed instances of ring species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_comm... .

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#119422 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Agree. An interpretation is a conclusion.
<quoted text> An interpretation is not evidence. Either is an assumption without evidence. Where is your evidence the biblical account was copied? Moses had sources. Educated in Egypt and spent time with Biblical God. Either or both could be a source.<quoted text> And if they did you would argue collusion. Evidence can be rejected for any reason. Variations are rejected because they do not jibe in every detail. If the accounts are all the same then there is collusion. Its like finding two fingerprints at a crime scene and rejecting them both because they are not the same. Even if they are not the same, it is still evidence two different people were there at one time or another. In investigation evidence is not thrown out if one is seeking the truth.
Where is your evidence that Moses wrote any of that part of the Bible? The evidence of pre-existing stories can be found in Sumerian text discovered in a dig in 1870. The Gilgamesh story recovered therein is pretty much Noah's story with different characters and some artistic license.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> That is a theory in search of a fact.
No that is a fact. It is well known that cultures exchanged goods, services, ideas and stories.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Creationist have answers. All you have to do is search their sites.
I have looked at some of the creationist sites and you all do have answers. Unfortunately, they aren't very accurate, useful or supported by any facts other than misinterpretation of facts.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> That sentence does not make sense so i think you mean the moderns assume the ancients could not tell fact from fiction. I give the ancients, including the kings of Europe, the benefit of the doubt. You, on the other hand assume they are all wrong. Just like your camp assumed the David Kingdom was a credible as King Arthur and were proven wrong. Why don't you own up to your mistakes instead of lame attempts to shift blame?
You are right. I reread my sentence and I left out some words. Speaking of not making sense, I don't what you are referring to with David Kingdom and King Arthur. Further you have wrong interpreted me and are misrepresenting me. I don't assume they are wrong, I base the knowledge that they possessed on the facts. Overall they had less knowledge at the time, but weren't stupid. Creationists usually rely on claims of stupidity when they say that the writers of the Bible couldn't know certain facts. Sorry to break it to you, but you guys are the arrogant ones.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Right and you know better with your metaphysical prejudices. Nothing supernatural at all places at all times. Do you believe in abiogenesis? Everything is here by accident or for no reason? Intelligence and life are by-products of non intelligence and non life? Where is the hard science in that? Where is the logic?
I know facts. Those that I don't like, I must still accept even if it means changing my position on something. Creationists apparently don't have the courage or will to do that.

Abiogenesis is an hypothesis and the science is still in its infancy. More evidence and testing may change that, but it doesn't eliminate God from the picture any more than evolution does. Those claims are just the fears of a childish group of people still stuck in the past.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> It is easy enough to find. If you knew anything about investigation on a computer. I am not going to hand it to you on a silver spoon.
So you are either too lazy, too stupid or you don't know where you found it and who wrote it. You come on a science forum, you need to supply some bibliographic data for the quotes you make. It is your responsibility, but as usual, responsibility is just a talking point with your group and not a reality.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119423 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> What historic evidence? You have not produced any. You mean the Bible which is compiled writings from the ancients? That is a prime example of confirmation bias which rejects evidence which does not fit their assumptions. It is the same reason the moderns rejected historical Jesus and David. Both are established from history and both have genealogies which go back through Noah to Adam. So 500 years ago, two thousand years ago and three thousand + years ago you have multiple sourced recorded history validating Noah and Adam. From the time of David.is about 2500 years ago. 1 Chr. 1. Nothing which refutes.
What historical evidence? You didn't produce any EITHER.
Yes both have genealogies which go back through Noah to Adam ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE. Hence we have a perfect example of circular reasoning:
1) "Jesus exists"
2) "Why"?
3) "Because it is in the bible"
4) "and why is the bible true"
5) "because it is the word of Jesus god"
6) "and why is it the word of Jesus god"
7) "because the bible says so"

I am not of this terrible fallacies.
Hence, you have no evidence. I just don't buy evidence that is based on circular evidence - a very healthy attitude so to say.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Like most you are no doubt biblically illiterate. Two things the Bible was right on and the moderns were wrong on. Jesus and David as historical. Both come from the Bible.
The most atheist ARE NOT biblical illiterate. Most of them are Christian raised or just read it by themselves. That includes me. YOU are the illiterate here, not having read ANY book on science, biology or cosmology. You are mentally still living in the bronze age. WELCOME to the 21st century.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean you only accept evidence which validates your assumptions.
No I only accept evidence that is based on observations, either by controlled field observations or by experiments. If they contradict my assumptions, OFF go my assumptions.

YOU are the one here who only accepts evidence which validates your own assumptions. When that evidence does not fit your bronze age mythology book, OFF it goes. WHATEVER it takes. Observations? F*ck you observations. OFF they go.

HENCE I shall have to insist in asking you for evidence.
And scientific evidence it will be.
If a worldwide flood would have happened 4,500 years ago, there should be geological traces of it ALL OVER THE PLACE and EVERYWHERE to be found on earth. And if you are not able to present me this evidence OFF goes YOUR assumptions.

WHERE is your geological evidence for a worldwide flood?
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> If it did we would not hear it from folks like you. So you trash all existing written evidence for evidence which only a handful sill understand. Why believe them when they were wrong on David and Jesus?
HOW DARE you to trash all those holy books worshipped by the other 5.7 billion people not believing in Jesus but their own gods? You will go to HELL!
See? You are an atheist yourself because you disbelieve all other ~4,900 gods mankind came up with. The only difference with me is that I just disbelieve ONE more.
lightbeamrider wrote:
I gave you the evidence from history. You rejected because of metaphysical prejudice and confirmation bias. You are up against two heavy hitters. Jesus and Moses. Josephus and Philo. All these are wrong and you are right?
I gave you the evidence from history: how biblical accounts were copied from earlier Mesopotamian sources. You rejected because of metaphysical prejudice and confirmation bias. Did Jesus, Moses, Josephus or Philo mention something about the the historical influence of Gilgamesh on the bible then?
wondering

Morris, OK

#119424 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
That is NOT true.
See http://scienceblogs.com/observations/2010/10/... .
Where I quote: "But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren’t sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species – the classic definition of a new species". Goatsbeard is the common name for Tragopogon.
Here are others factual observations of speciation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_comm... . Next, there are observed instances of ring species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_comm... .
Ah but claiming all plant hybrids are sterile is not quite telling the truth. hybrids can also be not sterile. so then we are back to square one. it is not a species changing into a new species.

we do not know if all hybrids are sterile. to name a few sterile ones we know of for example liger, tigon, mule are. plant hybrids which are the result of sexual reproduction between plants from two different taxa or species. not all plant hybrids are sterile, but many are. sterility in plant hybrids is most often the result of polyploidy, which occurs because of abnormal cell division and results in more than two sets of chromosomes in the cells of the hybrid offspring. hybrids commonly form in nature between closely related species, but humans also produce sterile hybrid plants intentionally for commercial purposes.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5619428_plant-hybri...

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#119425 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
What historical evidence? You didn't produce any EITHER.
Yes both have genealogies which go back through Noah to Adam ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE. Hence we have a perfect example of circular reasoning:
1) "Jesus exists"
2) "Why"?
3) "Because it is in the bible"
4) "and why is the bible true"
5) "because it is the word of Jesus god"
6) "and why is it the word of Jesus god"
7) "because the bible says so"
I am not of this terrible fallacies.
Hence, you have no evidence. I just don't buy evidence that is based on circular evidence - a very healthy attitude so to say.
Are you a Jesus myther? That damaged? Well I will leave it at that.

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#119426 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
finding a new species, as your post on the legless lizard, or reclassifying a species to a new one as the dolphin is not a species changing to be another species. we have been studying animals pretty well for 200-300 hundred years and have not seen one species change to become a new species.
they find many new species daily. in 2006 they averaged 50 new species per day. 16,969 species were discovered in 2006 according to a report compiled by Arizona State University's International Institute for Species Exploration, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the International Plant Names Index, and Thompson Scientific.
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0527-species.ht...
either evolution is on a speed track or they have always been here but just not know of at the time.
" the dolphin is not a species changing to be another species"

That's exactly what it was doofus.
What did you expect, a crockoduck?

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#119427 Aug 3, 2014
Creationists are baffled by science. They have the information available to understand it, but are either unskilled at reviewing and understanding it objectively or willfully misrepresent it. Overall, I think it is a mix of both. In writing this post, I realize there just isn't room to do justice to even a tiny portion of one of these subjects, so my examples are by no means complete, thoroughly described or completely inclusive.

After being on this forum for three years, my conclusion of fundie/creationist understanding of evolution is:
1. Evolution must result in greater complexity.
Generally, evolution has resulted in increasingly more complex organisms, but it is not mandated by the theory and reality of evolution. Evolution can lead to organisms with less complexity than their ancestors such as parasitic species or troglobytic species as examples.
2. Speciation means that one day a cow became a goat or a duck became a crocodile. In other words that one species leads to a new species and the new species completely replaces the old species and this is spontaneous for no particular reason.
None of this is true and partly it may be an artifact resulting from the described lineages of organisms that have been worked out, such as that of the horse. This lineage is displayed from the earliest known ancestors through the evolution to modern horses as shown in the fossil record. I can see where this could be confused into the view that it appears creationists have in part.
Species form when there is a barrier to reproduction. The existing species need not be displaced. Speciation can occur due to the formation of natural barriers that disconnect populations and eliminate gene flow and the exposure to different selection pressures. Speciation is an ongoing process in living organisms. It never stops as long as their are living populations of things and mechanisms to isolate them. Hybridization, mutations, gene duplication all the way to duplication of an entire genome, drift are mechanisms of speciation.
I would also comment that the depiction of lineages is speciation, but it isn't an ancestor birthing the next species and disappearing then the next and so on. There may be numerous species that arise along the way on only one at a time depending on the duration and conditions.
3. Because no one was their to see it, means it didn't happen.
The same could be said of any ancient belief and science does have the molecular, genetic, paleontological, geological, and other physical evidence to support its views that religion does not have.
4. We have never seen speciation.
We have speciation in Drosophila. We have evidence of recent speciation leading to 500 species of modern cichlid fish from a small founder population of one or a few cichlid species. Speciation of fireweed through ploidy. The goatsbeard example of hybrization that resulted in reproductive isolation of the new species. Speciation by hybridization has been observed in phasmids (walking stick insects). Speciation has also been noted in vertebrates including a naked mole rat.
5. We accept microevolution, but not macroevolution.
For one there is no way for them to deny microevolution, but apparently they feel this is enough wiggle room to avoid the logical conclusion of microevolution and time. The fossil record and geology provide the frontline evidence that supports macroevolution. They have been separately used to date the geological column and the stratification of the fossil layers can be followed backward to show decreasing complexity and change and followed forward to show increasing complexity, change and increasing abundance. Biogeography is another source of evidence that is explained by evolution and in turn casts support for macroevolution. Genetics and molecular biology bolster the finds of geology and paleontology and add volumes more data of their own. ERV's, molecular clocks, genomics, all support macroevolution.

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
2words into 2new words (May '12) 14 min Sharlene45 2,149
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) 18 min Ferrerman 7,131
Word Association (Mar '10) 56 min KNIGHT DeVINE 20,381
Post any FOUR words 1 hr Go Blue Forever 928
TRUMP, Donald (Jun '15) 1 hr Go Blue Forever 122
True False Game (Jun '11) 1 hr KNIGHT DeVINE 12,367
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 hr Go Blue Forever 7,399
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr River Tam 192,708
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 9 hr A Typical 56,717
More from around the web