Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173361 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.

The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120536 Aug 20, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
.
Why are you denying that this is the only way to get from a single cell to a human?
I'm not. As I said, we dealt with this last month, but you're still only arguing against the same caricature. Just as in the same manner that creationists always attempt to tackle mutation and natural selection individually and never at the same time. They don't want a whole bag of skittles, they just wanna flick one away and pretend the rest were never there.
messianic114 wrote:
I will allow for "not constantly upward" to be part of the equation.
Frankly I couldn't give a fig what you personally "allow". Your opinions aren't relevant.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120537 Aug 20, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
Also the "supported by the fossil record" is an assertion, not supported by fact. A fossil cannot tell us who its ancestors or progeny are. It can only tell us it was alive and it has similarities with other creatures. I would even question how accurate we can date the fossil as now I am being told that background radiation is invalidating C14 dating. Why am I to think that this same radiation might not invalidate other radiometric dating methods?
Oh, I guess this is why you still haven't been able to refute this then:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

After which you can tell us why each and every one of these is invalid and why. And why they work when creationists don't use 'em:

•Algal microfossil analysis (in paleolimnology)
•Amino acid racemization (L-to-D)(AAR)
•Argon40-argon39 chronometric
•Astronomical polarity time scale (APTS)
•Cation-ratio (CR)
•Chronostratigraphic (superposition, cross-cutting, intrusion)
•Coral reef annual layering
•Dendochronology (tree-ring)
•Deuterium-hydrogen stable isotope analysis
•Electron spin resonance (ESR)
•Fission track (U238-Pb206)
•Fluorine-uranium-nitrogen analysis (FUN)
•Fossil index (plant, animal, artifactual)
•Geomagnetic (archaeomagnetic/paleomagnetic ) reversal time scale (GTRS)
•Geomagnetic secular variation (around magnetic pole)
•Helium4-helium3
•Infrared-stimulated luminescence (IRSL)
•Isochron
•Isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS)
•Lichenometry (lichen/thalli colony radii)
•Lutetium176-hafnium176 geochronology
•Meteorite cosmic-ray exposure (Ne21, He3)
•Microfossil paleolimnochronology
•Milankovitch cycle astrochronology
•Mitochrondrial DNA
•Neon21-helium3 dating
•Obsidian hydration analysis (OHA)
•Ocean sediment core analysis
•Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL)
•Oxidizable carbon ratio (OCR)(C-total/C-oxidizable)
•Oxygen16-oxygen18 stable isotope analysis
•Paleosol chronology (in fossil soil stratigraphy)
•Patination (rock/desert varnish)
•Pigment remnant dating (in paleolimnology)
•Polar ice-sheet core
•Pollen/spore analysis (in palynology)
•Potassium40-argon40 chronometric
•Radiocarbon (14N-14C-N14/12C) by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS)
•Radioluminescence (RL)
•Radon222-lead210-lead206 chronometric
•Rhenium187-osmium187 chronometric
•Rubidium87-strontium87 chronometric
•Samarium147-neodymium143 chronometric
•Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS)
•Seriation/typological archaeochronology
•Strontium87-strontium86 chronometric
•Tephrochronology (of volcanic ash, tuff)
•Terrestrial rock cosmic-ray exposure
•Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry (TIMS)
•Thermoluminescence (TL)
•Thorium232-lead208 chronometric
•Uranium235-lead207 chronometric
•Uranium238-uranium234-thorium 230-radium226-lead206 (U-series)
•Varve analysis (of glacial-lake deposits)
•Writing (back 5000 years)
•Y-chromosome DNA
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120538 Aug 20, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Jeffrey Tomkins in 2011 declared that the difference in human/Chimp genomes was 86-89%(Answers in Genesis Journal dec. 2011). In 2013 all of a sudden it dropped to 70%.
You seem to have much confidence in what Jeffrey Tomkins has to say.
I have provided you the data in the article I referred to.
No in 2014 it is still 1,5%.
If you start to read creationist's website, I understand your confusion.
Because those websites are notorious sources for deceit, distortions, malinformation and pseudo-science AT BEST. I write it down as it is: DECEIT, DISTORTIONS, MALINFORMATION an, at best, PSEUDO_SCIENCE.
I invite you to read this article, about a former YEC's who happen to adopt a job in seismology. Read of his "experiences": http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/3198-w...
The fundies are misrepresenting different ways of measuring the genome (such as the genes or chromosomes rather than a base point to base point comparison) then claiming that common ancestry is invalid because of it. A human can be born with an extra copy of chromosome 21, but that doesn't mean that his genome doesn't closely match that of his parents.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120539 Aug 20, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
OK I can work with your analogy. If I keep walking I can get to the moon or the sun or a distant galaxy. Point is there are limits to things and again just because you can walk across town does not mean given enough time you can walk to the sun.
No, but if given enough time they CAN walk that distance.
messianic114 wrote:
How can trying to restrict variation have any effect on random mutation?
It doesn't restrict random mutation, but since evolution DEPENDS on variation, restricting it would obviously be a problem. That's why it leads to a higher probability of repeating characteristics which are already present. And that's why if you keep breeding dogs with a "fat gene" (for example) with other dogs who have the same gene, you are far more likely to have offspring who also have the same gene.
messianic114 wrote:
Are you suggesting if we were to breed animals with the opposite (most variation) that that would increase the likelihood of a new "kind" of animal evolving? I have seen this happen with "mutt" dogs.
You need to work on having your queries make sense.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120540 Aug 20, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
I would say that one difference is that people actually claimed to see Jesus walk on water. Nobody has claimed to see one kind change into another which has to eventually happen if ToE is to be believed.
People have seen ghosts therefore ghosts are real. People have seen alien spacecraft therefore UFO's really are aliens from other planets. People have seen aliens therefore aliens have visited Earth. People have seen Bigfoot, Lochness Monster... ad infinitum.
messianic114 wrote:
So if cats and dogs had a common ancestor, somewhere along the line a new foot would have to have been developed. No one has seen anything like this.
Last I counted they both had four.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120541 Aug 20, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
Address this properly or NEVER use this argument again.
Psychological impossibility for creationists.(shrug)

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120542 Aug 20, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I would say that one difference is that people actually claimed to see Jesus walk on water. Nobody has claimed to see one kind change into another which has to eventually happen if ToE is to be believed. So if cats and dogs had a common ancestor, somewhere along the line a new foot would have to have been developed. No one has seen anything like this.
In the Gilgamesh Epic it is claimed that their kings aged 30,000 year or more.
In the Qu'ran is also stuffed with all kinds of testimonies.
The Greek had their own myths with all kinds of hassling.
People on a regular basis see Yeti's, and experience alien abductions, see ghosts, Bigfoots, you name it. Don't tell me about human fantasy.

The development of all kinds of traits in dozes of lineages INDEED are observed in the fossil evidence. I even provided you an example: the bony fish > amphibian transition. And the fossil evidence will not just go away by playing dumb.

BTW you are now asking for fossil evidence of transition in traits. THAT is the correct way, NOT, as you did, demanding for evidence of the particular ancestor of a fossil ("fossils do not prove anything of their ancestors").

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#120543 Aug 20, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Your whole premise is wrong, "Why could we not deduce from this that man, chimp, cattle, dogs and mice all had a common ancestor 6 million years ago"
.
You need to show why it is wrong, not just assert it.
.
Man has a common ancestor with chimps 6-8 million years ago, the link between mammals is far far older , at least 68 million years.
.
Then why the similarity? If we only have a 30% difference between man and chimp in 6 million years, why are we not seeing a greater (in fact less) change from a supposedly far greater time period?
.
<quoted text>
The link with chimps is calculated by the molecular clock, confirmed in the fossil record.
.
Since its proposal in the 1960s, the molecular clock has become an essential tool in many areas of evolutionary biology, including systematics, molecular ecology, and conservation genetics. The molecular clock hypothesis states that DNA and protein sequences evolve at a rate that is relatively constant over time and among different organisms. A direct consequence of this constancy is that the genetic difference between any two species is proportional to the TIME since these species last shared a common ancestor.
.
We are not seeing a proportional difference.
.
Also the "supported by the fossil record" is an assertion, not supported by fact. A fossil cannot tell us who its ancestors or progeny are. It can only tell us it was alive and it has similarities with other creatures. I would even question how accurate we can date the fossil as now I am being told that background radiation is invalidating C14 dating. Why am I to think that this same radiation might not invalidate other radiometric dating methods?
I can't help you discover, your denial is too strong.
You don't want to learn the truth, you are happy with your fantasy.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120544 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?!
Anyway, just a cool thing to consider how such a thing can even be real. What do you think?
Are you comfy and healthy and happy?
You should be.
I love a good mystery on a rainy day. Beautiful anvil clouds in ultra clear blue above me now.
11:15 AM pst
Very provocative and worth reflection.
It's also cool to consider that anything could be real.
Are you aware of the phenomenon of a sudden, unexpected sensation that you are one with the Universe? It's far beyond an intellectual awareness. It all feels self-evident, with a heightened awareness that one is truly seeing reality for the first time. It feels as though it was something profound, yet right in front of one's nose all along. I've had that experience and it has changed me. And no, I'm not in lockdown.

I am happiest when I can allow the miracle of ordinary existence wash over me. Thanks for asking.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120545 Aug 20, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis1:24
Then God said: Let the earth bring forth every kind of living creature:
Are you suggesting that "god" and abiogenesis are the same?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#120546 Aug 20, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Are you suggesting that "god" and abiogenesis are the same?
Nope.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#120547 Aug 20, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
People have seen ghosts therefore ghosts are real. People have seen alien spacecraft therefore UFO's really are aliens from other planets. People have seen aliens therefore aliens have visited Earth. People have seen Bigfoot, Lochness Monster... ad infinitum.
<quoted text>
Last I counted they both had four.
People have seen Elvis.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120548 Aug 20, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Yet you presented God as your explanation of the validity of abiogenesis.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120549 Aug 20, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
People have seen Elvis.
Thank you very much.

“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?

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
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 3 min Chilli J 5,023
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 7 min Concerned_American 141,481
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 8 min Parden Pard 2,419
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 18 min Mega Monster 14,790
Word association (Jun '07) 20 min Mega Monster 3,664
News Texas woman arrested, fired after allegedly ste... 20 min Lawrence Wolf 8
Word Association (Jun '10) 21 min Mega Monster 28,879
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 27 min Billy Argyle 43,383
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 53 min LOST IN MISSISSIPPI 18,630
Poll How many SOCKS do you have? 1 hr Sweetie-Pie 6
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Wolftracks 169,176
News 'Red Light Robin Hood' Caught Rigging Cameras S... 5 hr Parden Pard 6
More from around the web