Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221446 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.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#120664 Aug 21, 2014
KeepCalmNcarryON wrote:
Taenia solium is the pork tapeworm belonging to cyclophyllid cestodes in the family Taeniidae. It is an intestinal zoonotic parasite found throughout the world, and is most prevalent in countries where pork is eaten. The adult worm is found in humans and has a flat ribbon-like body, which is white in color and measures 2 to 3 metres in length. Its distinct head called scolex contains suckers and rostellum as organs of attachment. The main body called strobila consists of a chain of segments known as proglottids. Each proglottid is a complete reproductive unit, hence, the tapeworm is hermaphrodite. It completes its life cycle in human, as definitive host, and pigs, as intermediate host. It is transmitted to pigs through human faeces or contaminated fodder, and to humans through uncooked or undercooked pork. Pigs ingest embryonated eggs called morula which develop into larvae called oncospheres, and ultimately into infective larvae called cysticerci. A cyticercus grows into adult worm in human small intestine. Infection is generally harmless and asymptomatic. However, accidental infection in humans by the larval stage causes cysticercosis. The most severe form is neurocysticercosis, which affects the brain and is a major cause of epilepsy.
Human infection is diagnosed by the parasite eggs in the faeces. For complicated cysticercosis imaging techniques such as computed tomography and NMR are employed. Blood samples can also be tested using antibody reaction of ELISA. Broad spectrum anthelmintics such as praziquantel and albendazole are the most
OINK!
;-D !
The hog is just eaten it up with it. I think it has gotten to his brain. He seems to be just mad with neurocysticercosis.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120666 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok thats it.
I think you have just effectively ended the conversation right there.
"Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may APPEAR or might be imagined. In a wider definition, reality includes EVERYTHING that is and has been, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS OBSERVABLE OR COMPREHENSIBLE." [wikipedia.com]
You have nothing more to say to me.
I wont take you seriously anyway.
Actually it is I who decide whether or not to say anything to you. This is a public forum after all, But then, you seem to want to force your opinion on everyone else, so why should a public forum be any different for the likes of you. You seem to think that Freedom of Religion means that you get to decide what everyone believes. Doesn't work out real well in the real world, does it?

As for being taken seriously, I haven't taken you seriously yet. I'm not about to start now. You cut and paste from pseudo-science sources and buy into their nonsense without a lick of evidential support. When someone in here points you at the evidence, you whine and refuse to look. Nope, you aren't serious.

As for your Wikipedia definition, you might try reading for comprehension instead of just cutting and pasting only part of the definition. The discussion we were having revolved around science, you can stretch it if you wish to include the philosophy of science and scientific methodology, but we were still talking about science. What you did was the metaphorical equivalent of moving the goal posts. Now why don't you toddle off and pat yourself on the back for your imagined victory.

I would call a POE here, but you wouldn't understand it.... yes, you are dismissed.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#120667 Aug 21, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There's atheistic Taliban in England?
Chuck, the closest we got to the Taliban in England are the occasional Islamic militant or British "patriots" who wanna get rid of them - along with anyone else who ain't white. Once again, atheism isn't much of a factor here.
Right. But that does not change the language of England, which is English and the Anglican church, known as the church of England.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120668 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
It is interesting that you mentioned the source that even we Christians conclude is the most unreliable.
Is it that you know of no other sources or that the unreliable one will suit your disposition?
You asked for a non-Christian source for the existence of Jesus. I know of a number of sources for the existence of Christians, but none other then Josephus for the existence of the person.
So what if he actually said and did those things; would it prove that he is the son of God?
No.
What if he NEVER said nor did any of those things; would it prove that he is not the son of God?
Since the qualities of a 'son of God' have not been determined, proving *anyone* is not such is impossible.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120669 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
A circular argument has presents no evidence and an axiom requires none?
A circular argument does nothing. An axiom is simply the start of the inquiry. If evidence shows the assumption (axiom) to be wrong, it can be dispensed with.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120670 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Describe the difference.
An axiom is simply a starting assumption.

A circular argument attempts to prove a point by using the point itself.

Axioms are necessary to begin a discussion. Circular arguments are useless since even a false proposition proves itself. p=>p

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#120671 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
A circular argument has presents no evidence and an axiom requires none?
Does calling it "daytime" when the sun is shining brightly outside require proof?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120674 Aug 22, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I assessed 3 websites with the 30% claim, all directly or indirectly from Tomkins.
I did plough through last 15 Topix pages to trace back your Chinese source, didn't find it.
Could you provide it again? I can easily provide dozens of sources with the 1.2% and 4%, also one from Chinese origin.
messianic114 wrote:
<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?)
Yes we see a pattern here indeed.
1. science is ever progressing
2. now we have the full genomes of both chimps and humans, it even then turns out to be nothing more than 4%
3. the earlier figure of 1.2% even now still stands for the functional part of the DNA
4. nothing better than having both genomes complete, when comparing, won't you agree?
5. in almost each of those earlier studies the researchers noted that there are limitations
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
Still awaiting for what?
For mutations rates that already have been provided? done.
In case you meant evidence for the fossil sequence: see below.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I would say, spare me of your amiss nuisance.
I already expressed that it is not done in a public forum to just ignore posts addressed to you.
I am not the only one who noticed it, Dude also reminded you of it (#120575: "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.").
I perfectly understand when it happens once or twice. As you remember, previously I just copied my earlier posts without much ado to restate my points again.
As it keeps on happening, my annoyance will increase. Especially when you are teaching others a lesson in neat debate. Yes then I will take notice of it. The precise form it takes should be assessed in its context, don't you think?
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
As noted above, this has been addressed 4 or 5 times before in my earlier posts. I won't answer these questions BEFORE you addressed those posts of days ago. Point by point. As I do with yours.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120675 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop asking me to do YOUR JOB for you!
It is YOU that believe in invisible magic Jew wizards!
PARDON?
WE should prove or disprove for YOUR claims?

SH!T post, AS ALWAYS.
The only thing you produce is utter misunderstanding of how proper debate works AND addressing metaphors as to be taken literally.

WHAT A SH!T.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120676 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh.
I see.
LOL
Translation: "I have no idea what I am tattling about, using the words "principle of equality" and therefore I just say "Oh.", "I see." and "LOL".
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120677 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_the hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>A circular argument presents no evidence and an axiom requires none?
TOLD you that you have not the slightest understanding of the most elementary of sound reasoning.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120678 Aug 22, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You started out life as a single cell. What did you gain as you got closer to adulthood? New structures. We've presented evidence of mutations adding bases to the genome (even new genes) for YEARS on this forum, and to you personally only a few months ago when you first showed up. Do we CARE if YOU call it evolution? Nope. And what we observe as we travel through time in the fossil record (and it doesn't even matter if you call the Earth young or old as it's irrelevant to this point) we see new fossils with new structures. And furthermore, we see it in a manner that's consistent only with what evolution expects. Which is why evolution is the only theory that's been developed so far that's capable of making successful predictions based on the fossil record. And as usual the evidence presented has been left unaddressed and dismissed.
Feel free to come up with a better alternative theory that does a better job of explaining the evidence.
I neatly produced several posts to him where I patiently to explain the biostratification in the geological record. I also tried to explain the differential origin of the geological layers we observe. And pointed him out to the fact that e.g. in the records of the Grand Canyon we see sea floors, desert floors, former forests, lagoons, etc. etc. all on top each other, in seemingly random order on the very same spot. I even tried to exclude the exact dating of those rocks and explained that at least we see a relative (ordinal) chronological pathway.

He didn't take notice or he just dodged it.
Already the observed biostratification completely debunks his idea that life all sprang out with the current biodiversity completely in place.

His only "try" was "the assumed layering", even after having corrected 2 or 3 times it isn't an assumption but an observation. Ironically the first who observed this were the 18th and 19th century first, English geologists who almost all were ardent creationists who even actively sought for evidence of the Biblical flood. They all failed and, instead, only saw evidence for the opposite.

Like Sedgewick, who wrote: "If I have been converted in part from the diluvian theory [the idea that observed sediments are laid by a worldwide catastrophic flood]...it was...by my own gradual improved experience, and by communicating with those about me. Perhaps I may date my change of mind (at least in part) from our journey in the Highlands, where there are so many indications of local diluvial operations.... Humboldt ridiculed [the doctrine] beyond measure when I met him in Paris. Prévost lectured against it."
In response to Charles Lyell's uniformitarian geology Sedgwick mentioned floods at various dates, then on 18 February 1831, retiring as president of the Geological Society he abandoned his former belief in Buckland's diluvial theory. Later he stated that the Biblical flood must have been a local, Middle East event.

Although he became increasingly evangelical when ageing, he strongly supported modern geology against conservative churchmen.

That, ladies and gentlemen depicts how a scientist, a strong believer, should behave: when the established and observed facts oppose doctrine OFF goes doctrine. That's why the Sedgwick Museum of Earth Sciences in Cambridge justly bears his name.

Even in the 21st century YEC and their cult caboodle do not manage to learn this lesson in scientific course from the early 19th century.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120679 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Whereas you made no attempt to distinguish between books nor authors; science text books, journals, reports etc are nothing but formalized opinions.
<quoted text>
That has no meaning except at the point where it betrays your hypocrisy.
What do you mean by "allow for the possibility"?
Either a) God exists or b) God does not exist.
As such it is you who choose to believe what you want to; inasmuch as you decide what it will take to convince you.
Otherwise... the scenario presents itself as a coin having two faces. And when the coin is tossed, there is a 1/2 chance that it will fall on either side. But the side YOU determine that it will fall on is the side YOU HOPE it will fall on.
YOU SIMPLY DO NOT WANT THERE TO BE A GOD.
<quoted text>
You make nothing at all.
<quoted text>
So since when is that a crime or a mark of ill character?
Is it not my responsibility as a rational being to criticize EVERYTHING?
<quoted text>
I cant support my belief... because I cant convince another to believe?
MikeF, GO F YOURSELF!
No, you can't support your claim because you can't provide evidence.

When a positive claim is made (in this case yours) no-one else knows if it is correct or not. Therefore while there may well be only two possibilities (in this case existence of God or non-existence of God) until conlusive evidence is presented, an agnostic position is not unreasonable, and is in fact THE most rational position to take.

Either it exists or it doesn't. BUT nobody knows yet. Therefore be open to the possibility until we have conclusive evidence.

You can't provide that.

That's not our problem so you can stop whining now.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120680 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Does it need to?
But does the fact that there is little or no physical evidence that he left of his own existence, mean he never existed?
Do not know Socrates?
<quoted text>
What do you call the fulfillment of the predictions that He made and the accuracy of the implications of the concepts he communicated?
Ancient?
Vague. Plus I dispute your claim because we know there are blatant inaccuracies in the Bible, such as flat geocentric square circular Earth, talking lizards, talking donkeys, and global flood which never happened in reality.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it need to?
Do we need him to have "magical" powers?
Or do we simply need to know that he knew what he was talking about?
Actually YES we DO need him to have magical powers. It's one of the claims of the Bible don'cha know, not sure if you've actually read it or not. So if he DIDN'T have magical powers then that's just yet another Biblical inaccuracy we can add to the list. If God meant in any way at all to use the Bible to communicate with humanity then that was obviously a big mistake.

The other was to give the job to fundies like you.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
So describe the evidence that cannot be verified byt he scientific method
I already TOLD you, that sentence is a contradiction in terms. Stop asking other people to do your own homework.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120681 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop asking me to do YOUR JOB for you!
It is YOU that believe in invisible magic Jew wizards!
Actually I don't believe in invisible magical Jew wizards because there's no evidence. So it's up to you to present it. Since that IS what the Bible claims God to be. Observe:

Traditionally God is known as God the Father rather than God the Mother. Hence it's a wizard and not a witch.

The New Testament is a follow-on from the Old Testament, which ultimately stems from the proposition of the Jewish God of Abraham. There's also this guy called JESUS, KING OF THE JEWS. You may have heard of him. Hence Jewish. Doesn't matter if we're talking about Judaism, Christianity or Islam. They're all Abrahamic religions.

Is God capable of performing miracles? Is it limited by physics? Does it have the ability to violate physics whenever it likes and do supernatural stuff that we would not normally see in today's modern society? Bible say yes. Hence magic.

Can we see God? How tall is he? Is he black or white? Does he have long hair? Short hair? Blue eyes? Brown eyes? Green eyes? Or is He an albino? Though many Christians like to claim he's a blue-eyed caucasian adonis, technically speaking nobody really knows what God looks like because we apparently have to be dead to see Him. Hence invisible.

Invisible.

Magic.

Jewish.

Wizard.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120682 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
So you dont even know the facts as presented by history?
I see.
History has been going for over 13 billion years, so it is not possible for everyone to know it all. So to which facts are you referring?

Because if you're just gonna give me Josephus and the Plinys et al I will just laugh my big booobs off.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
You are not only psychotic, schizophrenic and paranoid; now you are obsessed with Jewish wizards? Is there a medical term for that?
But since I'm not obsessed and it's actually your claim and not mine (since I don't believe in the thing) obviously it's not me who's psychotic.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Was that the only thing he was thought to be?
Why, what else was he? An alien from beyond our known universe? A magical wizard with a special telephone line to the Almighty? You tell us.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#120683 Aug 22, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
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?
My reference?

Don’t ya just love godbot igg’rance. You make the statement and then slope shoulders by accusing me?

Means of increase... yes.

Once again, see my avatar... you have to open your eyes to see, and the old godbot standby of “I am not looking so I can’t see” is kind of pathetic

Get over it and stop hiding behind bronze age camp fire stories

No, I am no one’s sock, but Turkana boy does speak a lot of sense and I have never read anything of his I can object to... however his attitude is entirely that of a male and I can assure you that I am not male. When you get to the stage that you are able to tell the difference between male and female then perhaps you will be old enough to venture out onto topix.

Honey the arrogance here is yours, you make claims and dis scientific knowledge and fact based on nothing but your own belief based on bronze age stories. And condescending, sorry buddy, disagreeing with you is not condescending, it’s simply showing the godbot how little his lack of intelligence impresses anyone... but if you consider pity and attempts to educate you as condescending then it does explain quite a lot.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#120685 Aug 22, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Did he have to include cockroaches?
And did he have to specify "Living"?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#120686 Aug 22, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
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?
When paleontologists uncover fossils of the elusive jackalope or crockoduck then will you be convinced?

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#120687 Aug 22, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
When paleontologists uncover fossils of the elusive jackalope or crockoduck then will you be convinced?
Probably not.

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
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 8 min xxxooxxx 17,212
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 13 min Fish_sticks 21,941
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 22 min KellyP in Jersey 46,730
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 24 min Rose_NoHo 37,864
"Any 3 word combination" (Dec '12) 29 min -TheExam- 3,748
Sexual Word Association Game...! (Nov '12) 30 min KellyP in Jersey 289
if there were no consequences ? 32 min Queen Doggy Sam 11
A to Z songs by title or group! 35 min xxxooxxx 1,831
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 50 min Sharlene45 217,268
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr contemplater 4,098
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 4 hr Fish_sticks 75,317
More from around the web