Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221488 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.

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.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120572 Aug 21, 2014
messianic1114 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.)

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.
Well, it seems impossible to ME that if genes do not change, there is no frequency change.

Because, assume this (simplified) gene frequency in an animal species genome:

gene 1 - 5%
gene 2 - 15%
gene 3 - 23%
gene 4 - 16%
gene 5 - 32%
gene 6 - 9%

If the frequency changes, we will become something like this:
gene 1 - 4%
gene 2 - 16%
gene 3 - 28%
gene 4 - 12%
gene 5 - 26%
gene 6 - 8%

This implies that some animals MUST have LOST gene 1, gene 5 and gene 6 and some animals should have GAINED gene 2, gene 3 and gene 4.

Of course the % are not realistic but only to make the logical point.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#120573 Aug 21, 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.
Less than half of one percent. The problem is you don't have enough people to cross the Red Sea until the time of Christ. No matter what exponential growth formula you use will have this type of problem. That's why you can't use exponential growth formulas so don't.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120574 Aug 21, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
People have seen Elvis.
At least some of them are right.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120575 Aug 21, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
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.
Howzazat work then?
messianic1114 wrote:
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.
Don't worry, I won't. Lots of people have presented data that you subsequently ignore. And I've explained numerous times why you do this - evidence doesn't matter to you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120576 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I can't treat them the same because you have no data that equivocates to objectively verifiable evidence. Unfortunately, magic Jews, especially invisible ones for some reason don't pass the scientific method.

I'm biased towards scientific evidence. If you don't have anything scientific then I can't help you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120577 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Oh.
So there are no claims of the existence of a Historical Jesus?
Of course there's lots of claims. There's this little thing called Christianity, you may have heard of it.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
And you have investigated his teachings or sayings, to see whether they are factual?
Yes. When I was a kid I tried pushing my little cousin into the swimming pool to see if he could walk on water. Unfortunately my experiment failed.

I also came across a ripe fig tree once and tried killing it just by touching it. That failed too.

I tried talking to a donkey and a lizard, but it turns out that due to anatomical reasons they could not communicate with me using human language even if they could understand what I was saying. I had a little better luck with a parrot, but parrots aren't mentioned much in the Bible.

So it turns out at least some of what he said was either storytelling, or just BS.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120578 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Equality of what?

What two (or more) things are you comparing?

A wooden log could be of equal weight to a rock, but that doesn't indicate intelligence unless you happen to have evidence that either one or both of them were cut deliberately into size.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120579 Aug 21, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't worry, I won't. Lots of people have presented data that you subsequently ignore. And I've explained numerous times why you do this - evidence doesn't matter to you.
INDEED!(eyewitness and victim of neglect)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120580 Aug 21, 2014
bohart wrote:
I understand that you have to believe certain things in your secular religion called evolution.
There is no religion of evolution. The straw-men invented by creationists to refer to evolution are inadequate and do not count.
bohart wrote:
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.
1 and 2 are irrelevant to the validity of evolution.

3 - This is correct, along with all the other mechanisms of evolution such as natural selection, genetic drift, duplication, horizontal gene transfer, etc, life has indeed evolved as is connected via common ancestry. This is what all the evidence points to.

4 - Man is an ape because that's how science has classified hominids. The term is just a label applied to a group of animals, so we can call things what we like. It's how animals are grouped is what makes things interesting, as it shows the relationships between different organisms. Man, for example, out of all life on Earth, is most similar to other apes.

It's kinda cool this whole nested hierarchy thing. And it was even invented by a creationist. Ironic that, a creationist helping to lay down the foundations for biological evolution, which would end up being the best, and in fact the only explanation for biodiversity on planet Earth.

5 - Of course there's more than just our physical lives. There's a whole universe out there. Heck, maybe there's even lots of universes. We just don't know yet. Heck, there could even be a God if you like. Doesn't matter. As none of this has any bearing at all whatsoever on the scientific validity of evolution either.
bohart wrote:
Your ramblings are irrelevant, there is no evidence to support your beliefs.
Projection.
bohart wrote:
I cannot refute what you believe.
I know. I mean it's pretty hard to deny that Natalie Portman is as hot as I believe. But in the case of science, belief is rendered redundant due to evidence. It is that which we have presented which you cannot address.

But while some of your religious beliefs are unrefutable in the fact that they are non-falsifiable non-scientific concepts, what I CAN do is address your posts. I can point out why your claims either do not show what you think they show, or are simply false because reality demonstrates otherwise. And I then give you AMPLE opportunity to do the same to me.

You can't.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120581 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yeah! DON'T BE BIASED TOWARDS INTELLIGENCE, PEOPLE! Don't be smart, BE STUPID!!!

Then you will... know stuff...

:-/

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
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 27 min andet1987 36,752
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 38 min andet1987 4,287
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 41 min SGHarleyhoney 76,019
Post "any three words" (Sep '12) 44 min andet1987 4,255
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr grace f a l l e n 218,734
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 1 hr andet1987 8,047
What Turns You Off? 1 hr honeymylove 548
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 7 hr Parden Pard 22,886
What is your pets name? 7 hr Parden Pard 43
A to Z songs by title or group! (Dec '16) 8 hr Judy 123 1,950
More from around the web