Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223191 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.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#119781 Aug 7, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text> response to fossils are not transitional forms.
.
All of them are. Everything alive or once was alive is transitional.
.
This is just an assertion, there is no scientific evidence that proves this. Saying everything is transitional is your way of saying we haven't seen any kind produce another kind so we will assume it.
.
<quoted text>
A single fossil, yes. A sequence of fossils can tell us quite a bit about ancestors and descendants.
.
You can not establish that any fossil was the ancestor of another even if you could extract DNA from them (which may be possible now we have soft tissue)
The series of specimens in the fossil record. The variability in populations. The morphological similarity of related species within genera. The nested hierarchy of living organisms repeated in fossils.

We don't have to establish a direct link as in they are grandpa and grandson. You don't need that kind of resolution to establish lineages.

You read about soft tissue and now that is the current fundie holy grail.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#119782 Aug 7, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
(1) You are responding to an individual who made that post over 3 years ago. I havent looked, but it's likely that post was the one and only post he/she made here.
(2) Lighten up. The views expressed by "Professor" are dying. Dying rather NOISILY, but dying with each generation.
They are flopping around a lot, gasping for air and grasping at straws, but I agree they are dying, but unfortunately not dead yet.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#119783 Aug 7, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
LIE no. 1 "the transitional forms are missing". They are not missing.
LIE no. 2 "they are finding way too much C14 in dinosaur fossils" - "they" were creationists applying C14 dating to dinosaurs. You don't use C14 method on specimen older than 50,000 years because C14 is not valid for specimen older. IF you apply C14 to older specimen, you PER DEFINITION get invalid and erratic results. NO scientist EVER would use C14 on dinosaur specimen. It is as if you use a medical thermometer to measure temperature of an oven.
Hence we see creationists here distorting and abusing scientific methods and subsequently the very next creationist LYING about it.
LIE no. 3: "Remember it was this same radiometric dating that gave them the extremely long ages to begin with" - radiometric dating is about the YOUNGEST technique for dating.
LIE no. 4 "they didn't check for decades to confirm the theory" - radiometric dating has been tested and calibrated extensively until today from its very beginning. These comprise literally thousands of studies. I do not exaggerate: THOUSANDS of studies. Let's have a "little" example: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF... . In this study the validity of 5 different radiometric dating techniques are assessed pertaining old groundwater. Its list of references counts 734 references. 734 references on a very small application field of radiometric dating and only evaluating 5 out of the total of 25 techniques of radiometric dating and out of a grand total of ~70 dating techniques available to earth and life sciences.
Tell me, why are creationists always are f*cking liars?
Their belief is based on worship of a book rather than the theology it engenders. If you show the book to be allegory, than they can't imagine what they will do. The lies are a defense mechanism to protect their fantasy. They don't see lying as sinning if it is done in defense of their delusional understanding of a book that says lies are sin.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119784 Aug 7, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Their belief is based on worship of a book rather than the theology it engenders. If you show the book to be allegory, than they can't imagine what they will do. The lies are a defense mechanism to protect their fantasy. They don't see lying as sinning if it is done in defense of their delusional understanding of a book that says lies are sin.
Lies as a defence mechanism are also lies.
Making such a series of lies in just 2 posts makes you a habitual liar.
He is also a coward because he won't answer any of the rebuttals. He just jumps to the very next assertions and lies. That makes him a dishonest debater.
Lying, deceit, cowardliness and dishonesty.
I DISRESPECT those people.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#119785 Aug 7, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Lies as a defence mechanism are also lies.
Making such a series of lies in just 2 posts makes you a habitual liar.
He is also a coward because he won't answer any of the rebuttals. He just jumps to the very next assertions and lies. That makes him a dishonest debater.
Lying, deceit, cowardliness and dishonesty.
I DISRESPECT those people.
I agree.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#119786 Aug 7, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
What I would like is you to provide in your own words (ones I will understand) how everything that exists came into being. I assume that you admit the universe is not eternal. If you think the universe is eternal, please explain why we aren't in a "dead from heat loss" universe now.[/QUOT]

First of all, I want to emphasize that there are several competing ideas about how the universe got started. Quantum fluctuations are one aspect of many of them.

The essential point is that the energy of 'nothing' is actually higher than the energy of 'something'. More accurately, a state where there are no particles is a higher energy state than nearby ones where there *are* particles. This is actually a common aspect of scalar particle fields (like the Higg's boson). But what it means for the early universe is that a quantum fluctuation will spark a decay into a lower energy state that has particles. This causes a chain reaction producing more such particles from the energy difference, very quickly 'pinching off' a new hot, dense universe.

This typically happens in a multiverse situation, which is eternal, but where the entropy (as calculated by the number of quantum states available) is rather.

In other scenarios, there is a previous contracting universe before ours that 'bounces' to produce ours. In that one, the entropy arrow of time is reversed, so *it* would see time going the other direction, with increasing entropy as you move farther back in time from the bounce.

If you want more details of later stages of the process, that is much less speculative and I can provide.

[QUOTE]Secondly are these quantum fluctuations still happening and if so are they creating new universes? If so where is the evidence of this?
yes, they are, and no they are not. The reason they are not is that 'nothing' is a higher energy state than 'something', which means the current fluctuations are from a lower energy state and do not produce the type of 'bubble' they do in 'nothing'.
Thank you for answering my post.
Sure, now do you have an alternative explanation? For example, if you assume the existence of an eternal deity, why is that deity not subject to heat death?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#119787 Aug 7, 2014
Sorry, my quoting got messed up with my last post.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
What I would like is you to provide in your own words (ones I will understand) how everything that exists came into being. I assume that you admit the universe is not eternal. If you think the universe is eternal, please explain why we aren't in a "dead from heat loss" universe now.
First of all, I want to emphasize that there are several competing ideas about how the universe got started. Quantum fluctuations are one aspect of many of them.

The essential point is that the energy of 'nothing' is actually higher than the energy of 'something'. More accurately, a state where there are no particles is a higher energy state than nearby ones where there *are* particles. This is actually a common aspect of scalar particle fields (like the Higg's boson). But what it means for the early universe is that a quantum fluctuation will spark a decay into a lower energy state that has particles. This causes a chain reaction producing more such particles from the energy difference, very quickly 'pinching off' a new hot, dense universe.

This typically happens in a multiverse situation, which is eternal, but where the entropy (as calculated by the number of quantum states available) is rather.

In other scenarios, there is a previous contracting universe before ours that 'bounces' to produce ours. In that one, the entropy arrow of time is reversed, so *it* would see time going the other direction, with increasing entropy as you move farther back in time from the bounce.

If you want more details of later stages of the process, that is much less speculative and I can provide. The essence is that protons and neutrons formed from the decay of the earlier particles; fusion of those lead to the lighter nuclei; after the universe had cooled significantly, stars formed and fusion inside those stars and in the supernova from their deaths lead to the heavier nuclei. Our sun is a third generation star, so we are all star-stuff (except for some of the hydrogen in us).
Secondly are these quantum fluctuations still happening and if so are they creating new universes? If so where is the evidence of this?
Answered above.
Thank you for answering my post.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119788 Aug 8, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Lies as a defence mechanism are also lies.
Making such a series of lies in just 2 posts makes you a habitual liar.
He is also a coward because he won't answer any of the rebuttals. He just jumps to the very next assertions and lies. That makes him a dishonest debater.
Lying, deceit, cowardliness and dishonesty.
I DISRESPECT those people.
My post above was flagged down.
It must have touched on the raw.
I like that. I like when liars and deceivers are touched on the raw.

Hence I shall post it again:

Lies as a defence mechanism are also lies.
Making such a series of lies in just 2 posts makes you a habitual liar.
He is also a coward because he won't answer any of the rebuttals. He just jumps to the very next assertions and lies again. That makes him a dishonest debater.
Lying, deceit, cowardliness and dishonesty.
I DISRESPECT those people.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119789 Aug 8, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
If that was true then fossils wouldn't exist.
<quoted text>
.
Fossils are not transitional forms.
False. Every single fossil is a transitional form.
messianic114 wrote:
They are evidence of
Nothing.

To creationists, that is. Evidence is irrelevant to your position. This is something you've already (admittedly unwittingly on your part) admitted. This is something you cannot escape from. It renders ALL your objections moot.

That is why you are being used as the biggest mole in Whack-A-Mole.
messianic114 wrote:
They are evidence of something that was once alive. The fossil does not nor cannot tell us who its ancestors or descendants are.
Indeed. But there is a distinct evolutionary progression that is observed in the fossil record, and that is why evolution is able to make successful scientific predictions that no creationist - correction - no human on the entirety of planet Earth is able to refute.

Of course you could always go back and refute my linky that I provided you months ago, and have done numerous times since. There's a REASON why you avoid it like the plague, and it's not (just) because you can't be bothered.
messianic114 wrote:
Another brilliant argument.
It WAS all that was required.(shrug)

After all, if it wasn't, YOU would have been able to refute it. But then you don't even have half the nouse Lighters has, and he's exceedingly daft.
messianic114 wrote:
Because obviously you're qualified to judge despite being a scientific illiterate.(shrug)
.
Just another ad hominem attack instead or real debate.
Actually your post was the ad-hom, I merely pointed that out. Plus it's not an ad-hom on my part when it happens to be an accurate description.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119790 Aug 8, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
What I would like is you to provide in your own words (ones I will understand)
Ah.

Well then...

You're screwed.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119791 Aug 8, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
.
<quoted text> response to fossils are not transitional forms.
.
All of them are. Everything alive or once was alive is transitional.
.
This is just an assertion, there is no scientific evidence that proves this. Saying everything is transitional is your way of saying we haven't seen any kind produce another kind so we will assume it.
I this truly was the case we would not have been able to demonstrate our position. But we have, over and over, and you're unable to refute.

"JUST NO, OKAY?!?" does NOT make a very good rebuttal on your part.
messianic114 wrote:
A single fossil, yes. A sequence of fossils can tell us quite a bit about ancestors and descendants.
.
You can not establish that any fossil was the ancestor of another even if you could extract DNA from them
Irrelevant. We don't have to provide direct ancestry, all we need to show is progressional change within the expected limits of nested hierarchies.

AND have that pattern match in comparative anatomy.

AND have that pattern match in DNA.
messianic114 wrote:
(which may be possible now we have soft tissue)
Which will be more and more unlikely the further back in time the fossil exists.

For example, we STILL don't have T-Rex DNA, despite creo verbal mastrubation misrepresenting Dr Schweizer.

But actually if we COULD get DNA from everything that ever lived, YES, that WOULD demonstrate common ancestry. Because that's how DNA WORKS.

But apparently it's supposed to work completely differently in a creationist universe. Must have something to do with all the scientific effects of invisible Jewmagic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119792 Aug 8, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
(1) You are responding to an individual who made that post over 3 years ago. I havent looked, but it's likely that post was the one and only post he/she made here.
(2) Lighten up. The views expressed by "Professor" are dying. Dying rather NOISILY, but dying with each generation.
Actually the fake Prof pops up every now and then to spam BS then run away. Doesn't still around though. Even makes Bo look like he's got balls of steel.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#119794 Aug 8, 2014
THINK wrote:
<quoted text>Highly excited non-thermal electrons diffused and some reached a junction where they accelerated and branched into a different material by a built in potential. The proton-proton reaction was first when two hydrogen nuclei (protons) fused and one converted to a neutron and made a deuterium, then a third proton formed the light isotope of helium and energy began to release.
Admittedly I don't see the logic in your response, but I'm not a quantum physicist. It is however an infinite argument. What caused the first electrons? etc. I agree there must have been some sort of first cause, but since we cannot know, I'm sticking with uncaused spontaneous quantum creation.
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#119795 Aug 8, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
My post above was flagged down.
It must have touched on the raw.
I like that. I like when liars and deceivers are touched on the raw.
Hence I shall post it again:
Lies as a defence mechanism are also lies.
Making such a series of lies in just 2 posts makes you a habitual liar.
He is also a coward because he won't answer any of the rebuttals. He just jumps to the very next assertions and lies again. That makes him a dishonest debater.
Lying, deceit, cowardliness and dishonesty.
I DISRESPECT those people.
I'm guessing that wondering is at least some of the judge its in the last 48 hours.
There may be a reason he's stayed away, maybe this one:
[19 hrs ago

Wondering
Tyngsboro, MA
Wondering

#17508
Yesterday ]

Is this the same wondering as on this thread, only with a capital 'W' instead of lowercase?
I feel pretty sure it is, post #17508 is from the "CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay Couple Wedding Cake - May Face a Year in Jail "
thread.
I basically can recognize some people by their phraseology and a little background info.
HOBBY LOBBY is a reference to wondering's appearance on a thread some months ago about Proposition 8 in California. I first saw him there as I went further into topix from the Hemet CA forums, to state of CA and CO forums, then to U.S. News forums where I first encountered this thread. I recognized wondering RIGHT AWAY here in this thread immediately by hi vernacular, responses and overall personality.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#119796 Aug 8, 2014
THINK wrote:
<quoted text>Highly excited non-thermal electrons diffused and some reached a junction where they accelerated and branched into a different material by a built in potential. The proton-proton reaction was first when two hydrogen nuclei (protons) fused and one converted to a neutron and made a deuterium, then a third proton formed the light isotope of helium and energy began to release.
Actually, very early on there were more neutrons than protons. There was an equilibrium via n<->p+e and the equilibrium is on the side of neutrons for higher energies. So the first actual fusion reaction was more likely to be n+n->np +e. The np is a deuteron. The next is most likely to have been np+np->ppn +n, forming a helium-3 nucleus. The end result is the same, but the specific reactions are slightly different.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#119797 Aug 8, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Admittedly I don't see the logic in your response, but I'm not a quantum physicist. It is however an infinite argument. What caused the first electrons? etc. I agree there must have been some sort of first cause, but since we cannot know, I'm sticking with uncaused spontaneous quantum creation.
The formation of the first electrons and nucleons was later than the quantum fluctuation. In this, we are getting into the subjects of 'leptogenesis'(formation of electrons and other leptons) and 'baryogenesis'(formation of nucleons like protons and neutrons) which are still rather open. The specifics depend very strongly on which heavier particles exist and how they decay. This is also relevant to the question of why more matter than anti-matter was ultimately produced and hence why the universe didn't just self-annihilate when matter and anti-matter recombined.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119798 Aug 8, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
A bit more than an assertion, Bucko. It's called the Theory of Evolution. Perhaps you've heard of it?
There is no poofing of one species into another. The changes are gradual. There is no distinct separation from one to another.
<quoted text>
No, that's what you're saying. I've never say anything remotely like that.
One species does not "produce" another species as if it would give birth to it.
BTW, kinds is just some biblical terminology. Not scientific.
<quoted text>
Well, given the fact that the professional biologists and geneticists say otherwise, I'll go with their opinion over some clown on the internet with a messiah complex. But that's just me.
.
<quoted text>
A bit more than an assertion, Bucko. It's called the Theory of Evolution. Perhaps you've heard of it?
There is no poofing of one species into another. The changes are gradual. There is no distinct separation from one to another.
.
Which if it were true we would see fossils with miniature legs, fish/amphibians with gills and lungs etc. We don't see this in the fossil record. What we see is distinct organisms with no predecessors. Can you explain since we are seeing gradual change over time why we have no new phyla since the Cambrian Era? That's what 500 million years?
.
They were complex, well-developed organisms with many types of differentiated cells, and it is widely conceded that evolution of these organisms from unicellular precursors within such a short period of time is highly doubtful.
http://www.allaboutscience.org/the-cambrian-e...
.
<quoted text>
Well, given the fact that the professional biologists and geneticists say otherwise, I'll go with their opinion over some clown on the internet with a messiah complex. But that's just me.
.
Yeah these guys have never been wrong before. You are tacitly admitting you don't even understand the science. You can't answer the hard questions, and you resort to name calling like a child in the playground.
.
By the way the Emperor has no clothes on. And no you are not pissing me off.
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#119799 Aug 8, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
My post above was flagged down.
It must have touched on the raw.
I like that. I like when liars and deceivers are touched on the raw.
Hence I shall post it again:
Lies as a defence mechanism are also lies.
Making such a series of lies in just 2 posts makes you a habitual liar.
He is also a coward because he won't answer any of the rebuttals. He just jumps to the very next assertions and lies again. That makes him a dishonest debater.
Lying, deceit, cowardliness and dishonesty.
I DISRESPECT those people.
Update from last post:
[wondering
Highlandville, MO]
NOT the same proxy server.
Oh, well, it's the overall presentation that counts.
My real location is Hemet CA but my proxy shows Simi Valley.
My style and persona are recognizable throughout my name changes and I try to make people aware of name changes when it seems relevant to the discussion at hand. My name is easily changeable and is a reflection of my inside-me truth and my outside-me reality.
That's why it changes.
I am as always
HMT123 Observatory
This../\.. registered profile has been "shadow banned".
It's areal thing, check it out on google. IT has NOTHING to do with being reported.....
So creepy, that I won't even log into the account now.
Yes my friend, a lot of unseemly strange things go on all around us, all the time.
But for the Grace of God,.._..._.. go_ i_.
7:16 AM pst
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119800 Aug 8, 2014
KeepCalmNcarryON wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm guessing that wondering is at least some of the judge its in the last 48 hours.
There may be a reason he's stayed away, maybe this one:
[19 hrs ago
Wondering
Tyngsboro, MA
Wondering
#17508
Yesterday ]
Is this the same wondering as on this thread, only with a capital 'W' instead of lowercase?
I feel pretty sure it is, post #17508 is from the "CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay Couple Wedding Cake - May Face a Year in Jail "
thread.
I basically can recognize some people by their phraseology and a little background info.
HOBBY LOBBY is a reference to wondering's appearance on a thread some months ago about Proposition 8 in California. I first saw him there as I went further into topix from the Hemet CA forums, to state of CA and CO forums, then to U.S. News forums where I first encountered this thread. I recognized wondering RIGHT AWAY here in this thread immediately by hi vernacular, responses and overall personality.
PARDON.
I don't think that delving in someone's background will add much to the quality of this debate.
I don't care what wondering produced in other threads or on other fora.
I only deal with his sayings here.
I don't even like to delve into other's credentials the way you do, to be honest.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119801 Aug 8, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
Which if it were true we would see fossils with miniature legs, fish/amphibians with gills and lungs etc. We don't see this in the fossil record.
Yes we do.
messianic114 wrote:
What we see is distinct organisms with no predecessors.
No we don't.
messianic114 wrote:
Can you explain since we are seeing gradual change over time why we have no new phyla since the Cambrian Era? That's what 500 million years?
Oh, then you're saying that life hasn't changed for 500 million years?

Please present evidence of this in the fossil record.
messianic114 wrote:
They were complex, well-developed organisms with many types of differentiated cells, and it is widely conceded that evolution of these organisms from unicellular precursors within such a short period of time is highly doubtful.
allaboutscience
No, it's not widely conceded at all.

By the way, your source is a well known scientifically illiterate bunch of liars for Jesus, so if this is getting your info from no wonder you keep saying stupid things.(shrug)

Such as describing millions of years as a "short" amount of time. Not to mention numerous other factors you rubes are ignoring,
messianic114 wrote:
Yeah these guys have never been wrong before. You are tacitly admitting you don't even understand the science.
Sure they have, but they've never been wrong about the theory of evolution as a whole.

So far at least.
messianic114 wrote:
You can't answer the hard questions, and you resort to name calling like a child in the playground.
You really hate irony meters, don'cha?
messianic114 wrote:
By the way the Emperor has no clothes on. And no you are not pissing me off.
The emperor is a creationist who happens to be impotent. And nobody takes his claim to the throne seriously either.

Feel free to actually address what we say for once instead of countering us with baseless assertions and repeated fallacies we addressed years ago.

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
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 21 min quilterqueen 13,880
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 40 min quilterqueen 150,859
The Song Title Game (Jul '10) 44 min quilterqueen 16,087
2words into 2new words (May '12) 49 min quilterqueen 8,915
Poll Things that drive you crazy (Jan '10) 52 min quilterqueen 5,092
~Things YOU Love Game~ (Oct '12) 56 min Emerald 4,039
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 1 hr quilterqueen 84,268
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr wichita-rick 226,075
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 2 hr Anton Karidian 32,464
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 3 hr Rosa 34,396
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 3 hr Rosa 6,733
More from around the web