Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221949 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120550 Aug 20, 2014
KeepCalmNcarryON wrote:
OK Wolfie, Hold on just a sec, and then i'll desist.
IF Any one will look at this picture of galaxy
M106, a spiral galaxy like the Milky Way,
http://www.nasa.gov/chandra/multimedia/galact...
You'll notice the violet and blue arms of this galaxy are curiously similar in geometry to the more sharply defined arms full of dust and stars. In red and yellowish-white.
Now consider that there are actually two SETS of arms at nearly a right angle to each other, but having the same size and asymmetric geometry AS each other.
Now I don't know about anyone else, but I spy a galaxy suddenly flipped at a 90 degree angle and right out of its own X-ray emissions?!
Imaginative, but unlikely. First of all, the x-ray arms and the visible light arms are quite different in composition and in many of their properties, temperature being just one big aspect. it is far more likely that the black hole in the center of the galaxy went through a period of very high activity and what you see in those arms is part of the 'bubble' of hot gas emitted at that time. This is supported by the fact that they found much less gas in the center than expected for a black hole of that size.

It is common for black holes and even neutron stars to have disks of gas swirling around them and 'jets' of hot gas coming out from the axis of rotation. With a bit of precession, this fits the x-ray picture we see pretty well.
messianic1114

Calgary, Canada

#120551 Aug 20, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If the frequency has changed then that means genes have changed, in at least some organisms. See, this is what happens when you start babbling BS about concepts you don't understand.
Mutations themselves are random with respect to fitness, but you neglect to account for the fact that they are acted upon via NON-random mechanisms such as natural selection.
But remember none of this matters to you because you don't care about evidence.
So can you explain why you're still violating the Commandments of your own religion?
.
<quoted text>
If the frequency has changed then that means genes have changed, in at least some organisms. See, this is what happens when you start babbling BS about concepts you don't understand.
.
This response is a great example of babbling. Gene frequency change does not mean there is a new gene. All it means is the genes within the population are being effected lets say by natural selection. The genes themselves haven't changed only the frequency of the genes within the population.
.
<quoted text>
But remember none of this matters to you because you don't care about evidence.
.
I'm still waiting for you to produce data. You had a chance with this post but you responded with an insult instead of data, so don't tell me I'm disregarding the data when you aren't producing it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120552 Aug 20, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Why would you think that a smooth line is less complex than a jagged one. Certainly if you are trying to express it mathematically it is more complex but if you are trying to form rock a smooth line is far more complex. If we took a look a a pyramid when newly contructed where it has facing stones smooth and a knife edge cannot fit in the joints, would one conclude that this is less complex than a pile of rock?
Yes. Complexity is related to the difficulty in describing it in totality. A straight line is *much* less complex than a bumpy one and a pyramid is MUCH less complex than a pile of rocks. But it is the simple fact that nature tends to produce bumpiness and jagged edges and not long straight edges that makes the pyramids a good test of intelligence. It is ultimately the *simplicity* of the structure that tells us intelligence was acting.

Complexity in this descriptive sense is often produced by simple processes and descriptive simplicity is often produced by complex processes. Don't get the two mixed up. But the point remains: complexity alone is not evidence for intelligence. Often it is only evidence of a feedback loop.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120553 Aug 20, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, NOT AT ALL, because God or Jesus were not HIS claims but YOURS.
So you CANNOT say the same.
Thats not what I am implying.

Why does he refuse to treat the data regarding God or Jesus the same way he treats any other data?

His mind is warped by intellectual bias.
messianic1114

Calgary, Canada

#120554 Aug 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
What creationists fail to understand is that the rate of population growth is not constant.
.
Why would you think we do understand this. Certainly over short term periods we would expect to see variation, but over longer periods these conditions aren't to important. For example during the black plague 25% of Europe died but it didn't take but a few decades for that to be overcome. Less competition for resources allowed for larger families.
.
Are you convinced the birth rate is not falling?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120555 Aug 20, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Except you uh, haven't presented any data.
Heck, even if you were able to give us contemporary evidence of some guy called Jesus who invented a religion called Christianity it still wouldn't be evidence that Jews are magic or that an invisible wizard made the universe.
Oh.
So there are no claims of the existence of a Historical Jesus?

And you have investigated his teachings or sayings, to see whether they are factual?
messianic1114

Calgary, Canada

#120556 Aug 20, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Because it is do to selection from the applied insecticides.
A gene providing resistance has become fixed in the population for resistance to the insecticide. The gene can be an existing gene at very low frequency or a mutation of an existing gene that has been subjected to selection. In either case it is evolution.
.
I think I get it now, evolution is now being defined as any change in gene frequency even if no new base pairs have changed.
.
Pretty hard to argue with that.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120557 Aug 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
... It is ultimately the *simplicity* of the structure that tells us intelligence was acting...
And interestingly, when I tried to make a connection between the "influence of equality" and an intelligent creator, you could not appreciate it.

Is conformity to the SIMPLE principle of equality not the essence of intelligent thought and intelligent behavior?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120559 Aug 20, 2014
KeepCalmNcarryON wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank You So Much Sir!
I think that my very well be what I'm seeing there.
You should check out all the other great Chandra X-ray telescope pics, REALLY strange stuff you can only see in X-rays. To our eyes some of the objects pictured are mostly or completely
invisible!
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/mul...
:-D !
KeepCalm.....testing something using your link (above)....

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120560 Aug 20, 2014
Sorry...wrong (but still interesting in its own right) link.
Meant to add YOUR link above:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/mul...
messianic1114

Calgary, Canada

#120562 Aug 20, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The theory doesn't have anything to do with the numbers of a population or species. You can't really be this lost can you.
That is a question of ecology.
.
It's a question of time. Based upon current population growth if I remember correctly we could have started with 2 people in 400 AD and have over 8 billion people by today's growth (doubling every 50 years)
.
Even if we say we only double every 150 years I think it would only take about 6300 years to reach 8 billion.(Quite a coincidence)
.
What growth rate would be necessary to go from 2 (or pick a number) 200,000 years ago to 8 billion today to account for the population?
.
Seems like it would be almost zero. What data do you have to support this?
.
As a curious side note if we were increasing like the Duggar family it would take less than 750 years to reach 8 billion people.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120563 Aug 20, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
It's a question of time. Based upon current population growth if I remember correctly we could have started with 2 people in 400 AD and have over 8 billion people by today's growth (doubling every 50 years)
.
Even if we say we only double every 150 years I think it would only take about 6300 years to reach 8 billion.(Quite a coincidence)
.
What growth rate would be necessary to go from 2 (or pick a number) 200,000 years ago to 8 billion today to account for the population?
.
Seems like it would be almost zero. What data do you have to support this?
.
As a curious side note if we were increasing like the Duggar family it would take less than 750 years to reach 8 billion people.
No, there is not coincidence at all. It is easy to set your rate to a wide range of dates.
And it is foolish to assume a steady rate. We know that is has changed. One of the big changes in rates came from when agriculture was first invented. Interesting side note , it may have been beer that gave man the incentive to farm grains.
We can estimate population in the past based upon the measured rate of evolution (the number of mutations that we all get each generation is key), and the size of the genome for the population as a whole, and using known populations of the Earth. By doing so we can project back 60 or 70,000 years to the Toba event when population of the Earth dropped to 10,000 people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe...

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120564 Aug 20, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
I numbered your assertions above.
1. This a plain lie and deceit, as proven by me and Polymath: there is CONSIDERABLE evidence of life generated from abiotic conditions. The pathway is not conclusive but to say there is "zero evidence" is blunt lying.
2. No it isn't, is is a very promising scientific hypothesis with, in all its components, MUCH evidence already provided and for the rest there is not A SINGLE VALID reason to change this course of research. ON THE CONTRARY.
3. yes it has and much research is going on worldwide on it.
4. sure. We don't need consensus on how to approach a problem. That's VERY scientific. The only thing that counts is the end result.
5. that, as Polymath and I tried to explain you, is NOT the way it is done.
6. yes there is. And the empirical evidence for it is already partly there and for the rest on its way.
So, as Dude noted correctly, we have 4 possible explanation for the universe and life:
- God did it
- natural causes
- Aliens did it
- some yet not conceived explanation.
We may exclude the last 2 ones here.
Now what do we have pertaining scientific evidence, that's what you demanded, ISN'T IT?
Hypothesis 1 "God did it":
1 do you have any scientific evidence for a god?
2 do you have any scientific evidence of some intelligence creating it?
-3evidence for intelligent origin of complexness?
Shall I give the answer?
1 nada
2 nothing
3 nope.
Hypothesis 2 "natural causes":
1 we have considerable evidence for the big bang
2 we do have no idea what came before the Planck epoch though
3 we do have already much evidence for several stages in the pathway of life from abiotic conditions.
Now let's compare, what's better: "nada, nothing and nope" or "considerable and much".
I did not include evolution. Because it is not about the origin of the universe or life.
But as creationists tend to muddle everything, I now will add: for evolution theory the evidence is overwhelmingly and decisive to the degree that it is not an doubt in science any more.
I understand that you have to believe certain things in your secular religion called evolution.

1. the universe created itself, no creator
2. life self assembled and created itself
3. all life forms evolved through mutations
4. man is an ape
5. This physical life is all there is.

Your ramblings are irrelevant, there is no evidence to support your beliefs.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120565 Aug 20, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, your denial is quite predictable. In the meantime have you ever considered refuting my posts by addressing what I say for once?
I cannot refute what you believe.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120566 Aug 21, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that you have to believe certain things in your secular religion called evolution.
1. the universe created itself, no creator
2. life self assembled and created itself
3. all life forms evolved through mutations
4. man is an ape
5. This physical life is all there is.
Your ramblings are irrelevant, there is no evidence to support your beliefs.
bohart you are only insulting your religion by trying to insult the science and calling it a religion. If religion is so bad why do you have one? Clearly accepting science is not a religion. If something is shown to be wrong, we would change our minds. What evidence would it take for you to accept that your religion is wrong.

If you want to show that a scientific claim is wrong the best path is to use science. Aspects of science are corrected every day. Maybe you could be right, though I doubt it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120567 Aug 21, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I cannot refute what you believe.
If you could find the appropriate scientific evidence you could.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#120568 Aug 21, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Tell me, are you Buck Crick in another sock?
.
I only wear the socks my wife gives me.
.
<quoted text>
the average farmed pig today produces about twice as much meat as its forebears 200 years ago
.
The assertion was size not amount of meat.With steroids the pigs are developing faster but not significantly bigger. But you have already affirmed there is a limit.
.
<quoted text>
”Cows of today are also able to produce more milk and have decreased their carbon footprint by 41 percent per kilogram of milk produced”
.
No assertion was made about milk production. But I think you would agree there is a limit.
.
<quoted text>
“The beef industry has also reduced their use of resources by using 69.9 percent of beef cattle, 81.4 percent of feedstuffs, 87.9 percent of water and only 67 percent of the land required to produce one billion kilograms of beef from 1977 to 2007”
.
Again this was not asserted and doesn't prove evolution. It proves we can breed animals to produce more on less. Bottom line is there is a limit.
.
Well you write in the same ignorant and pedantic way as buck and use similar arguments... including this one, it was just a question.

Ahh the creatard copout.“I can’t see it so it’s not there”... The increase in productivity/density/SIZE of farm animals began following the industrial revolution and the relocation of the work force from agricultural to manufacturing, many years before the advent of steroids. And of course in most countries (including the UK) steroids/growth hormones etc are banded from agricultural use with the exception of controlled veterinary modification... there are even national government agencies tasked with the adherence to EU wide LAW on the quality of foodstuffs
http://www.food.gov.uk/business-industry/farm...
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/panels/contam.ht...
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scv/index_en.h...

I do not really care whether you asserted or not, you may ignore facts that contradict your fiction and claim ‘you can’t see them so they don’t exist’ but both those facts blow the god dunitwiv magic claim out of the water.

As I said
<quoted text>
I would consider the evidence and unlike so many trusting creationists I have examined some of the vast amounts of complimentary evidence myself and learned that humanity evolved from earlier primates, god dunitwiv magic was not a factor. This evolution is happening today (see my avatar, the Langkawi bent-toed gecko and the Pygmy three-toed sloth for examples)

Then take a look at my avatar... human skull, yes... modern human skull... no, it is about 25000 years old and shows marked evolutional differences between cro magnon (i.e. human) and modern human (i.e. you) including size, is brain pan was around 13% larger than the skull of modern humans indicating a bigger brain ... LOL... bone density which is also thicker walled than modern humans and of course the increase thickness of brow ridges.

The very reason I use that skull as an avatar is to show creatards one single evidential fact that that proves their poorly informed contention regarding evolution to be wrong. And despite the vast physical evidence you are still going to ignore it and wander on your merry way thinking that bronze age goat farmers had it right all along.

I can also go into detail on the Langkawi bent-toed gecko and the Pygmy three-toed sloth if you want.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120569 Aug 21, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that you have to believe certain things in your secular religion called evolution.
1. the universe created itself, no creator
2. life self assembled and created itself
3. all life forms evolved through mutations
4. man is an ape
5. This physical life is all there is.
Your ramblings are irrelevant, there is no evidence to support your beliefs.
Flut prut and grut.
1. no
2. not "created itself"
3. no
4. no
5. no.

See, how your brain works.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120570 Aug 21, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I cannot refute what you believe.
Yes you could but you can't.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120571 Aug 21, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Yet you presented God as your explanation of the validity of abiogenesis.
No.

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 song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 min Princess Hey 220,810
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 3 min cjt12 24,089
Post "ANY WORD" that comes to mind! (Jul '12) 8 min cjt12 3,456
2words into 2new words (May '12) 17 min wichita-rick 8,384
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 24 min Sublime1 4,625
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? (Nov '14) 27 min Judy 123 1,135
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... (Nov '14) 31 min Judy 123 2,353
A to Z songs by title or group! (Dec '16) 42 min CJ Rocker 2,136
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr F_R_E_D 24,014
Which Poster Are You Thinking About Right Now? 2 hr 5th Row Centre 22
More from around the web