Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222919 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.

KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#119890 Aug 11, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said!
I have mentioned several times in the past that to deny a creator's reality would be to deny a creator.
yyyYUP!
Blasphemy by their own definition. That's why neither seventee or FREE SERVANT came back yesterday. I had some reservation about my last comment about the cornered rats, I sensed defeat and a broken heart behind the words "That is not true". I'm not feeling to proud of finishing someone, so lets get back to science.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119891 Aug 11, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Life is a complex collection of interacting chemical reactions. What is the difficulty with the universe 'creating' that?
None at all. Because of after years of me asking him he's not been able to give us even one example of a single bioligical lifeform that was designed. It's as if all we actually observe is a complex collection of interacting chemical reactions creating life.

All over the planet.

Every single day.

Despite being known to most modern humans, Bo apparently still has an issue with that.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119892 Aug 11, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Cambrian "explosion" lasted for 20 MILLION YEARS.
The first life, to be found in the deepest geological layers, was not complex. It was single cellular. The first multicellular life, stromatolites and bacterial mats are the most primitive of multicellular organisms. These date back 3 billion years ago. the next step is to be found in the geological layers of 2 billion years old. There we find bacterial colonies showing cell differentiation.
The next step are the multicellular acritarchs, which were abundant 2 billion year ago and persisted until 1.4 billion ya. The first bilaterians date back 580 million years. Then the Ediacara biota appear, 630 million years ago. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacara_biota . The Ediacaran also saw the emergence of burrowing worm-like animals.
At the start of the Cambrian, many new types of traces first appear, including well-known vertical burrows such as Diplocraterion and Skolithos, and traces normally attributed to arthropods, such as Cruziana and Rusophycus. Burrows provide firm evidence of complex organisms than the Ediacaran species. 580 million years ago the first sponge spicules and cnidarians appear. The skeleton has emerged in the form of tubes. 550 million ya they were radiated into dozens of species. Exoskeletons are a defence against predation. Hence, there must have been predators, yet we didn't found their fossils yet. Predation also implies more complex behavior and body systems.
The next step, mineral skeletons as shells, sclerites, thorns and plates appeared and included species like the earliest species of halkierids, gastropods and hyoliths.
Just NOW we reached the period of the Cambrian "explosion". Which is rather not called "explosion" any more in the biological literature because it doesn't desve that designation any more after the research and finding of last 3 decades. Se http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosi... .
Basically: what are you TATTLING about, messianic?
<quoted text>
The only thing we have seen until now is you producing one lie after the other and showing utter ignorance of about all the things you feel you are entitled to tattle about.
NEXT is someone here is NOT ANSWERING SYSTEMATICALLY questions and post, it will be YOU. You are not only a notorious liar but also a blunt coward.
.
<quoted text>
The Cambrian "explosion" lasted for 20 MILLION YEARS.
.
Where is the proof of this? This is just an assumption. I wonder if anyone ever did any C14 dating on this material?
.
Regardless of how long it lasted this is the last time period with a new phyla. Can you explain why we have had no new phlum in 500 million years?
.
<quoted text>
Predation also implies more complex behavior and body systems.
.
Where were you to comment when someone said evolution need not get more complex?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#119893 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
The Cambrian "explosion" lasted for 20 MILLION YEARS.
.
Where is the proof of this? This is just an assumption. I wonder if anyone ever did any C14 dating on this material?
Of course not. C14 dating is only good for ages of about 50,000 years or less. Do you understand why?

That said, there are *other* means of getting radioactive dates and those *have* been used.
Regardless of how long it lasted this is the last time period with a new phyla. Can you explain why we have had no new phlum in 500 million years?
Because those phyla diversified (by evolution) and took up the avalable niches.
Where were you to comment when someone said evolution need not get more complex?
it is true. It need not. It can.
FREE SERVANT

Fairfax, VA

#119894 Aug 11, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Life is a complex collection of interacting chemical reactions. What is the difficulty with the universe 'creating' that?
What is the difficulty in understanding that the elements could not have just done this without guidance from a reasoning source that thinks, wills, perceives, judges etc?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119895 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
The Cambrian "explosion" lasted for 20 MILLION YEARS.
.
Where is the proof of this? This is just an assumption.
Messy, why are you lying AGAIN by asking for evidence you have ZERO interest in?
messianic114 wrote:
I wonder if anyone ever did any C14 dating on this material?
Why would they do a STUPID thing like that?

Mess, you've already been TOLD MULTIPLE TIMES ON THIS THREAD that C14 dating isn't to be used past 60,000 years, a hundred tops.

You DO know when the Cambrian explosion was purported to take place, yes?
.
messianic114 wrote:
Regardless of how long it lasted this is the last time period with a new phyla. Can you explain why we have had no new phlum in 500 million years?
Have their been new species in 500M years? If so then your question is irrelevant.

But then, so is the fact you've never been able to refute a single one of our posts so far.

And then further, so is the fact that evidence doesn't matter to your position anyway,
.
messianic114 wrote:
Where were you to comment when someone said evolution need not get more complex?
And that was already addressed too.

So really the only thing relevant to ask you is - how come no matter what we write you will ignore it no matter what? When will you finally address the only thing that's important here?

EVIDENCE.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119896 Aug 11, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is that we have been given the answer as to what caused all things in the beginning and how it was.
by a 3500 year old scrap of sheep's skin. right....
FREE SERVANT

Fairfax, VA

#119897 Aug 11, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
by a 3500 year old scrap of sheep's skin. right....
The Bible is much more than that. We learn from the scriptures that the universe came to be what it is through the will of God. It tells us of our Creator and what pleases him as well as how He thinks and feels and reasons and judges.
FREE SERVANT

Fairfax, VA

#119898 Aug 11, 2014
Human beings have attributes that are like God. We have free will and we do what pleases us. We are able to be aware of the world with our minds and we have the faculty of consciousness and thought. These came from our Creator. The scriptures tell us that man.was made in the image and likeness of God and given dominion over all of the earth.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#119899 Aug 11, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Human beings have attributes that are like God. We have free will and we do what pleases us. We are able to be aware of the world with our minds and we have the faculty of consciousness and thought. These came from our Creator. The scriptures tell us that man.was made in the image and likeness of God and given dominion over all of the earth.
This is not the right thread to preach. ENOUGH ALREADY!
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119900 Aug 11, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not. C14 dating is only good for ages of about 50,000 years or less. Do you understand why?
That said, there are *other* means of getting radioactive dates and those *have* been used.
<quoted text>
Because those phyla diversified (by evolution) and took up the avalable niches.
<quoted text>
it is true. It need not. It can.
.
<quoted text>
Of course not. C14 dating is only good for ages of about 50,000 years or less. Do you understand why?
.
i would say that since the half-life of C14 is what 6500 years that you would not expect to find any C14. But to our surprise they have been C14 dating recent fossil finds and they are finding C14. To me this would suggest one of two things:
1. C14 dating is bogus
2. The fossils aren't 65 million years old.
.
<quoted text>
Because those phyla diversified (by evolution) and took up the avalable niches.
.
Evolution is blind, it doesn't look for niches and if you can say this then there would be no new evolution. Which is it?
.
<quoted text> regarding evolution getting more complex
it is true. It need not. It can.
.
But the fossil record is showing a progression and the fact that mankind is the most complex is also evidence that it is getting more complex and to star out as a single celled organism to what we have today also shows it is getting more complex.
.
Do we have any evidence of evolution regressing?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119901 Aug 11, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not the right thread to preach. ENOUGH ALREADY!
.
Firstly this is a free forum, you are not required to attend.
Secondly you are preaching yourself "Nihil curo de ista tua stulta"
Thirdly you are not required to answer.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#119902 Aug 11, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>What is the difficulty in understanding that the elements could not have just done this without guidance from a reasoning source that thinks, wills, perceives, judges etc?
Why do you think that is required? We *know* complexity can grow in certain chemical environments. What do you think limits it from becoming life?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119903 Aug 11, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Messy, why are you lying AGAIN by asking for evidence you have ZERO interest in?
<quoted text>
Why would they do a STUPID thing like that?
Mess, you've already been TOLD MULTIPLE TIMES ON THIS THREAD that C14 dating isn't to be used past 60,000 years, a hundred tops.
You DO know when the Cambrian explosion was purported to take place, yes?
.
<quoted text>
Have their been new species in 500M years? If so then your question is irrelevant.
But then, so is the fact you've never been able to refute a single one of our posts so far.
And then further, so is the fact that evidence doesn't matter to your position anyway,
.
<quoted text>
And that was already addressed too.
So really the only thing relevant to ask you is - how come no matter what we write you will ignore it no matter what? When will you finally address the only thing that's important here?
EVIDENCE.
.
messianic114 wrote:
I wonder if anyone ever did any C14 dating on this material?
Why would they do a STUPID thing like that?
.
Well lets see, if the C14 was found in the quantities expected (in this case zero) then it would validate the dating by strata. But if the quantites are not found in the expected range, then maybe one would reconsider the strata dating method. Oh my bad, that would be following the evidence and the scientific method which requires testing.
.
<quoted text>
Have their been new species in 500M years? If so then your question is irrelevant.
.
Only to you, who would disregard the fact that this isn't occurring as it should. Oh my bad again, this would be testing a theory.
.
<quoted text>
And that was already addressed too.
So really the only thing relevant to ask you is - how come no matter what we write you will ignore it no matter what? When will you finally address the only thing that's important here?
.
I don't ignore your posts I question them. So far you have not been answering the most obvious of questions.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#119904 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Of course not. C14 dating is only good for ages of about 50,000 years or less. Do you understand why?
.
i would say that since the half-life of C14 is what 6500 years that you would not expect to find any C14. But to our surprise they have been C14 dating recent fossil finds and they are finding C14. To me this would suggest one of two things:
1. C14 dating is bogus
2. The fossils aren't 65 million years old.
Again wrong. There is a background level in many places caused by local radioactivity. This background level is a further limitation to the accuracy of C14 for large ages.
Because those phyla diversified (by evolution) and took up the avalable niches.
.
Evolution is blind, it doesn't look for niches and if you can say this then there would be no new evolution. Which is it?
No active looking is required: simply mutations that occasioally can take advantage of new niches.
regarding evolution getting more complex
it is true. It need not. It can.
.
But the fossil record is showing a progression and the fact that mankind is the most complex is also evidence that it is getting more complex and to star out as a single celled organism to what we have today also shows it is getting more complex.
No, actually, it doesn't show progression. It shows a lot of back and forth with an overal increase of complexity, but with many regressions.
Do we have any evidence of evolution regressing?
Yes, plenty. Blind fish in caves, for example. Any time an organ takes energy and is useless, it will deteriorate over time.
FREE SERVANT

Fairfax, VA

#119905 Aug 11, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think that is required? We *know* complexity can grow in certain chemical environments. What do you think limits it from becoming life?
Life is much more than certain chemical reactions. Life is a set of instructional systems that work toward causing it to become what it is patterned to be.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119906 Aug 11, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again wrong. There is a background level in many places caused by local radioactivity. This background level is a further limitation to the accuracy of C14 for large ages.
<quoted text>
No active looking is required: simply mutations that occasioally can take advantage of new niches.
<quoted text>
No, actually, it doesn't show progression. It shows a lot of back and forth with an overal increase of complexity, but with many regressions.
<quoted text>
Yes, plenty. Blind fish in caves, for example. Any time an organ takes energy and is useless, it will deteriorate over time.
.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
i would say that since the half-life of C14 is what 6500 years that you would not expect to find any C14. But to our surprise they have been C14 dating recent fossil finds and they are finding C14. To me this would suggest one of two things:
1. C14 dating is bogus
2. The fossils aren't 65 million years old.

polymath wrote
Again wrong. There is a background level in many places caused by local radioactivity. This background level is a further limitation to the accuracy of C14 for large ages.
.
How does this retard the decay of C14?
.
<quoted text>
No active looking is required: simply mutations that occasioally can take advantage of new niches.
.
But we have not seen a new body type in 500 million years, This doesn't seem like occasionally. Additionally evolution cannot stop a new body type from emerging even if only to die off later.
.
<quoted text>
No, actually, it doesn't show progression. It shows a lot of back and forth with an overal increase of complexity, but with many regressions.
.
The overall increase in complexity is what is supposedly shown from the fossil record and by other indicators. There is no escaping this.
.
<quoted text>
Yes, plenty. Blind fish in caves, for example. Any time an organ takes energy and is useless, it will deteriorate over time.
.
What you would call a regression is what I call a pattern of general deterioration in life.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119907 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Of course not. C14 dating is only good for ages of about 50,000 years or less. Do you understand why?
.
i would say that since the half-life of C14 is what 6500 years that you would not expect to find any C14. But to our surprise they have been C14 dating recent fossil finds and they are finding C14. To me this would suggest one of two things:
1. C14 dating is bogus
2. The fossils aren't 65 million years old.
.
<quoted text>
Because those phyla diversified (by evolution) and took up the avalable niches.
.
Evolution is blind, it doesn't look for niches and if you can say this then there would be no new evolution. Which is it?
.
<quoted text> regarding evolution getting more complex
it is true. It need not. It can.
.
But the fossil record is showing a progression and the fact that mankind is the most complex is also evidence that it is getting more complex and to star out as a single celled organism to what we have today also shows it is getting more complex.
.
Do we have any evidence of evolution regressing?
No, C14 dating is not bogus. It is very well substantiated. Now like every tool it can be misused. You don't use a screwdriver as a hammer and then complain when the handle breaks. If you use radiometric tools inappropriately you will get bad result too. Instead of listening to bogus sources you should listen to people that can explain why and when you use or don't use radiometric dating.

And it seems that you are forgetting there are two main driving forces of evolution. There is both random variation and natural selection. Natural selection is what allows evolution to adapt to new environments. It is what keeps "devolution" from occurring.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119908 Aug 11, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, C14 dating is not bogus. It is very well substantiated. Now like every tool it can be misused. You don't use a screwdriver as a hammer and then complain when the handle breaks. If you use radiometric tools inappropriately you will get bad result too. Instead of listening to bogus sources you should listen to people that can explain why and when you use or don't use radiometric dating.
And it seems that you are forgetting there are two main driving forces of evolution. There is both random variation and natural selection. Natural selection is what allows evolution to adapt to new environments. It is what keeps "devolution" from occurring.
<quoted text>
No, C14 dating is not bogus. It is very well substantiated. Now like every tool it can be misused. You don't use a screwdriver as a hammer and then complain when the handle breaks. If you use radiometric tools inappropriately you will get bad result too. Instead of listening to bogus sources you should listen to people that can explain why and when you use or don't use radiometric dating.
.
Now you are saying the scientists who used the C14 method to date the fossils didn't know what they were doing!
.
If there was measurable C14 in the fossil why would C14 dating be a wrong method? Because it didn't give the assumed date?
.
<quoted text>
And it seems that you are forgetting there are two main driving forces of evolution. There is both random variation and natural selection. Natural selection is what allows evolution to adapt to new environments. It is what keeps "devolution" from occurring.
.
You need to address this to polymath and others who are saying evolution is not an upward moving (meaning more complex) force.
.
Even so I don't see a clear indication from you as to the certainty that evolution has shown a progression to better suited and more complex organisms. This would seem obvious to me if we are to assume that simple amino acids eventually evolved to life as we know it today.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#119909 Aug 11, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>What is the difficulty in understanding that the elements could not have just done this without guidance from a reasoning source that thinks, wills, perceives, judges etc?
You can claim it, but you can't show it. That is the difficulty.

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
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 15 min WhatDoesTheFoxSay 29,088
What's one thing you appreciate in your life? 19 min Suezanne 564
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 25 min Suezanne 224,522
Play "end of the name"... (Jun '15) 25 min andet1987 3,053
Names, A to Z, ... (Aug '12) 55 min andet1987 4,124
What Could Be Steamed? 1 hr Suezanne 8
Does anyone remember? (Apr '13) 1 hr andet1987 1,772
More from around the web