Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 200991 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119772 Aug 7, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
This is just an assertion, there is no scientific evidence that proves this.
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.
messianic114 wrote:
Saying' everything is transitional is your way of saying we haven't seen any kind produce another kind so we will assume it.
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.
messianic114 wrote:
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)
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.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#119773 Aug 7, 2014
helene wrote:
<quoted text>We could of evolved from dinosaur shit,If you so called republicans are Christians you go to hell Bible God said Thou Shalt Not KILL and Christians do. Look what Bush did. Wars for profit..Glad I knew better times Time to commit suicide. Maybe I will go to a better place Like 6ft under or a can of ashes between mom and dad will do just fine..
(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.
THINK

Youngstown, OH

#119774 Aug 7, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Then how did the first cause come to be?
A scientific law such as the photovoltaic effect.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119775 Aug 7, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
For example, when the theory of punctuated equilibrium came out, there was a LOT of debate about the particulars. But now it is accepted as a standard part of the modern view of evolution.
.
This is because it has become obvious the transitional forms are missing, not because they are reading the evidence correctly. I have posted that they are finding way too much C14 in dinosaur fossils (way less than 1 million years). They don't take this evidence to mean the timelines are wrong, they look for a way to explain away the obvious. Remember it was this same radiometric dating that gave them the extremely long ages to begin with. The fact that they didn't check for decades to confirm the theory tells me they are not doing a good job.
.
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?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119776 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)
LIE no. 5 "This is just an assertion". No it is not, it is backed by a vast body of empirical evidence.

LIE no. 6 "You can not establish that any fossil was the ancestor of another even if you could extract DNA from them". Yes we can. ESPECIALLY and 100% for sure when there would be still DNA in it.

LIE no. 7 "which may be possible now we have soft tissue".- there is no DNA in the soft tissue we found. The soft tissue proves that birds evolved from dinosaurs because of the molecular evidence.

Three lies in just 5 lines text.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119777 Aug 7, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Anyone can come up with an explanation. I want one that is supported either mathmatically or by some other means we can be confident in. We already have someone using gravitational waves as a cause when in reality they are more likely an effect.
Do these requirements also apply to your ideas of the origin of the universe.

If answer = "no" thou art a hypocrite and measuring with double standards.
If answer = "yes" - GO AHEAD.
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#119778 Aug 7, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Fractals are a geometric pattern that is repeated at every scale and so cannot be represented by classical geometry.
"represented by classical geometry"
LOOK AT the Link
scroll down to fractals
Now have a whole google full of fractals n geometry
https://www.google.com/search...
HARD CORE
https://www.google.com/search...
THINK

Youngstown, OH

#119779 Aug 7, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Then how did the first cause come to be?
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.
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#119780 Aug 7, 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance
This was intended as the first of the three

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What Could Be Hot? (May '15) 1 min Enzo49 764
Post "ANY WORD" that comes to mind! (Jul '12) 1 min Knock off purse s... 3,363
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 min Zani Grey 194,091
only TWO words! (Nov '08) 2 min Knock off purse s... 27,467
"Any 3 word combination" (Dec '12) 2 min Knock off purse s... 2,643
Any Word ! (Mar '11) 3 min Knock off purse s... 4,709
Only Three Word (Nov '09) 4 min Knock off purse s... 13,287
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 11 min Knock off purse s... 7,786
News 10 weird and crazy sex facts you may not know 35 min Enzo49 6
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 49 min Enzo49 8,445
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Mega Monster 58,047
More from around the web