Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 171653 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

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.

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...

:-/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120582 Aug 21, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
When will fundies ever learn that it's not the numbers that are a problem - it's in the fam nookynook that's the problem! Such populations have a habit of NOT growing exponentially...

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120583 Aug 21, 2014
Gillette wrote:
Hey Ted! Great to see you again!:)
Good to see you too, Gillette.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120584 Aug 21, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not trying to make any thing other than an effort to find truth. I do think we are in a battle to find the real facts that explain the natural world around us, and I am a believer in freedom of thought. Free thought and the US Patent system has brought the world most of our greatest inventions we enjoy today. Many inventors are Creationists and creativity is enhanced in free countries like ours.
But not every idea is equal to every other idea. Yes, many Creationists over the centuries have invented a great many things. What inventions were based on their creationist beliefs? What scientific advance or invention is based on Creationism? You won't even need to use any fingers to count them up. What these Creationists did was not allow their belief sets from stopping them from inventing things. What modern Creationists want is exactly that. They want to stop any inquiry that doesn't foremost start with God. If your idea conflicts with their narrow interpretation of some religious idea, you are not allowed to pursue that line of thinking. These aren't my words, these are written up in the DI's wedge strategy, in the AIG statement of faith, in the ICR .... This is their goal. Creationists of the past who invented a great many things would not have been able to succeed if modern Creationists were running the show back when they did their work.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120585 Aug 21, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Life exists ergo,...God made it
You are stating a religious belief, not a scientific fact. Aura Mythy's 'it happened' is a fact based on the fact that life exists. Therefore while some might see it as a tautology, the fact is from her statement we can examine and learn HOW it happened. You statement is an ending to any possible discussion. Your personal belief is irrelevant.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120586 Aug 21, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You truly are an earth clod
As are you and one day we will all return to the earth either as cremated remains or decomposing flesh.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#120587 Aug 21, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis1:24
Then God said: Let the earth bring forth every kind of living creature:
Hardly logical, but funny as hell. <grin>

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#120588 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.
Why? Because he refuses to accept 2000 yo hearsay as evidence?

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120589 Aug 21, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Why complexity is evidence of intelligence?
what an amazingly stupid question
If the S.E.T.I. telescopes and listening devices were to pick up a morse code type signal from space it would be a confirmation that intelligent beings had sent it.
random signals are background noise, it takes intelligence to arrange the signals into information. Information also requires intelligence.
I think you are making an assumption as if it were a fact. Yes, intelligence can arrange signals into information. However you are assuming that ONLY intelligence can create information. Check Koglomorov Complexity for a more mathematical explanation.

What SETI is looking for is patterns. The patterns MIGHT indicate intelligence. So far SETI has found many patterns in the radio signals, further research has so far assigned them a low probability as being produced by an intelligence.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#120590 Aug 21, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
When will fundies ever learn that it's not the numbers that are a problem - it's in the fam nookynook that's the problem! Such populations have a habit of NOT growing exponentially...
I think it is because their own family trees go straight down.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120591 Aug 21, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
......as I said,...you dismiss the math
Because Coppedge's argument is pretty much nonsensical.

Try something simple. Take a deck of cards, shuffle them up and place them in front of you. What are the odds of the top card being the Jack of Spades? 1 in 52, right? If you predict the answer, you can calculate the odds. But you must have an end state in mind.

Now, same deck, what are the odds of it being any playing card? 100%, right? Since the outcome hasn't been per-determined, the odds argument is nonsense.

One more example. Take the deck and deal out the cards face up. What are the odds the deck of cards would come out in that specific order? 52!(52 Factorial). That's a pretty astronomical number, right? I mean 1*2*3*4 ...*52. Most calculators can't handle it and have to use scientific notation, something like 8x10 raised to the 67th power. Now the hard question ... when you dealt those cards, did you beat those astronomical odds?

If you are honest you would say no you did not. The reason goes back to the first example. You didn't predict the outcome before you dealt the cards.

That's why Coppedge's calculations make no sense. That's why Dembski's 'specified complexity' calculations are so easily dismissed. They act like life is some predicted end result. Life happened, therefore it exists. The odds argument is as meaningless as you looking down at the face-up cards and claiming you beats those odds. In all honesty, you did not.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#120592 Aug 21, 2014
the bible and science are both results of man. the accounts in the bible-from man. the test in science-from man. the validity of the bible-man’s word. the validity of the evidence-man’s word. bible stories and scientific tests both arise from man.
you both can argue “god said so” or the “test said so”. fact is both are and rely on “man said so”..
the one that you choose to believe is the one you will follow.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120593 Aug 21, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
...From the very beginning, living organisms demonstrated a survival instinct. The abiogenesis molecules display no instinct for survival, and therefore cannot be used to show that "life" can arise from inorganic matter.
And you can prove your assertion that living organisms demonstrated a survival instinct form the beginning? I don't think do.

Inorganic molecules evolving to use a different source of material to continue self-replicating when the original materials were used up. Sounds like the very definition of some sort of survival instinct, although I think 'instinct' is overstating the case.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120594 Aug 21, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
The 30% is wrong. It is produced by a creationist – nothing more to add.
But if you nevertheless wish: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/06/18... by P.Z. Meyers, professor in biology and genetics.

Moreover, 10 years ago we didn’t have the complete DNA sequence from chimps. Previously even not from humans. DNA comparisons in these days were made by taking a sample from the DNA. But as stated above, if you took the sample from the non-functional, this would yield quite other results than taken from functional DNA. But nobody could tell exactly because little was known which parts of the genome precisely were functional or on-functional.
Creationists LOVE these differences and play around with it.
Hence, a gain from 1.23% to 4% is a matter of what parts of the DNA you examine and the complete genomes of both species known.
<quoted text>
As you yourself required: don’t just say I am wrong but explain why I’m wrong.
INDEED.
The whole thing about the “fossils cannot tell us who its ancestors or progeny are” has been addressed before by me. You didn’t respond to it WHATSOEVER. And now coming back with the same lousy arguments is EVEN WORSE than answering without explanation. It is not answering AT ALL and then proceed as if nothing has been explained.
It is VERY ANNOYING.
Fossils cannot tell who their exact ancestral species were INDEED.
But that is NOT relevant NOT required.
Subsequent fossils, in the correct chronological sequence, demonstrating a clear evolution in all traits in the pathway of evolution form one form to another, are sufficient evidence. I even gave you several examples.
Address this properly or NEVER use this argument again.
.
Firstly, you have no right or authority to tell me what to do.(oh I forgot, you have delusions of grandeur), please forgive oh great one, I didn't mean that.
.
Secondly, I guess you missed this in your link.
"The problem here is that while the creationists got the main result right,"
.
What main result was that, that there is a 30% difference?
.
Additionally I saw another report first from a Chinese source (not Spanish) which said the same thing.
.
<quoted text>
Moreover, 10 years ago we didn’t have the complete DNA sequence from chimps.
.
This didn't stop them making a 99% correlation assertion, or a 96% assertion.
(Are we seeing a pattern here?)
.
<quoted text>
As you yourself required: don’t just say I am wrong but explain why I’m wrong.
.
You have access to the data, as far as I can see from your rebuttal, the % is not disputed.
Plus, I haven't required anything, I have requested it and I am still waiting!
.
<quoted text>
The whole thing about the “fossils cannot tell us who its ancestors or progeny are” has been addressed before by me.
.
Forgive me, oh divine one, since you have spoken all should listen, your arrogance (I mean intelligence) is awe inspiring. Please forgive my Freudian slip.
.
You have not been able to prove anything regarding the ancestors or progeny of a fossilized animal. I don't know how anyone could believe it can be proven. This is obviously a unsupported (by proof) assertion. All you have is evidence of similar animals. That does not prove ancestry. When I am dead you can compare my remains to someone who died 200 years ago and say well they look alike he must be the ancestor/progeny. Oh really?
.
Your sparse list of an evolutionary path is just an opinion.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120595 Aug 21, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Because he refuses to accept 2000 yo hearsay as evidence?
.
This is done all the time, they call it history.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120596 Aug 21, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
.
Are you retracting your inference that there are limitations?
.
Regardless of the means of increase, we still have a pig, cow, etc. When you can show some kind of significant structural change, which would have to happen if evolution is correct, then I would be impressed. But nothing like that has ever been recorded in human history.
.
By the way, are you a sock of Turkana boy? You display the same arrogance and condescending nature? Or is that just a trait of the highly evolved evolutionist?
The Dude

London, UK

#120597 Aug 21, 2014
wondering wrote:
the bible and science are both results of man. the accounts in the bible-from man. the test in science-from man. the validity of the bible-man’s word. the validity of the evidence-man’s word. bible stories and scientific tests both arise from man.
you both can argue “god said so” or the “test said so”. fact is both are and rely on “man said so”..
the one that you choose to believe is the one you will follow.
Uhuh, and while you're at it just let us know how many practical applications of science rely on invisible Jew magic.

Stupid.

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
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 3 min Jennifer Renee 12,653
last word/first word. (Apr '12) 3 min cathouse cowboy 6,043
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 4 min Princess Hey 141,157
Word association (Jun '07) 5 min andet1987 3,329
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 6 min middleman1 29,505
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 7 min Grace Nerissa 1,894
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 7 min andet1987 41,929
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 42 min Crying Shame 42,085
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Camilla 167,059
News How a Guy Got Banned From All Starbucks 2 hr beatlesinafog 21
More from around the web