Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209980 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.

wondering

Morris, OK

#120978 Aug 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You lying idiot. You said this:
"then it is simple. show the solid scientific evidence that says without a doubt, that the universe created itself."
That was a demand for much more than evidence. That was a demand for proof. And that is another creationist trait. Creationists sooner or later always lie. Either that or admit defeat..
So I would suggest that you try asking a properly formed question.
Try not to be a dishonest git, it really helps.
first off this is not a question ""then it is simple. show the solid scientific evidence that says without a doubt, that the universe created itself." <<<how do you see this as a question?(<<that is a question)
secondly science does not deal in "proofs"
thirdly you just keep on dodging trying to defend your belief.

you do not even know the difference between a question and a request but you claim to know science. LOL is all I can say to that!
wondering

Morris, OK

#120979 Aug 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Your lack of education is shown by the questions you ask. It is not childish to point out that fact.
And no, I do not have to lie for science. You may claim not to be a creationist, you are not convincing too many people. You seem to be a full fledged creatard.
(the post prior to this one of yours) you just agreed it was not a question now you are back on it being a question. make up your mind cupcake.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#120980 Aug 27, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
What would you call whatever the bacteria did to form a nylon digesting enzyme if not a drive for survival? Certainly all the bacteria could have died, but they didn't.
Lots of bacteria did die. Or didn't live the length or quality of a life that their nylonase expressing neighbors did. The appearance of nylonase in the population of bacteria is an example of evolution. That is what it is called.

The mutation of the gene that lead to the ability to express nylonase was a chance event. Nonrandom selection acts on this random event and if it results in those individuals with the gene being able to reproduce a greater mean number of offspring. Those that don't have the gene are surviving at best the same as they did before as long as selection favors those with the gene.

Your idea would then require an answer to why those without the gene don't have a survival instinct or at least don't have the same survival instinct. And you would still need to establish a survival instinct to begin with when no evidence supports that such exists. You are just anthropomorphizing bacterial genetics and not proposing a valid alternative to natural selection.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120981 Aug 27, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
first off this is not a question ""then it is simple. show the solid scientific evidence that says without a doubt, that the universe created itself." <<<how do you see this as a question?(<<that is a question)
secondly science does not deal in "proofs"
thirdly you just keep on dodging trying to defend your belief.
you do not even know the difference between a question and a request but you claim to know science. LOL is all I can say to that!
Quit being a dishonest idiot.

Your demand was a demand of a proof. I know that science does not deal in proof, but that was the mistake that you made, not I. If you can' t see how you demanded proof then you are an even bigger idiot than I first thought.

There was no dodging on my part. Look how you reacted when I called your demand a question.

If you want answers to questions ask proper questions. Quit being dishonest.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120982 Aug 27, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
(the post prior to this one of yours) you just agreed it was not a question now you are back on it being a question. make up your mind cupcake.
Idiot, your questions are creatard questions. Your demands are cratard demands. Quit being a lying idiot and people will be polite to you.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#120983 Aug 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine idiot, it is a poorly worded demand.
You know what I meant.
Why are does the subject of evolution turn relatively intelligent creationists into blithering dishonest idiots?
Hey SZ. How are you doing? Haven't seen you in a while.

“Proud Member”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#120984 Aug 27, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>My take on quantum mechanics is that it seems to defy the known laws of physics. Of course it doesn't assume a deity, but it deepens the mystery of what we think we know.
You''re confused, quantum mechanics is the explanation of things that it seem to defy the known laws of physics.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#120985 Aug 27, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think its only reasonable to assume an instinct of fear in organisms with the neurological and endocrine structures sufficient to support it. In more basic organisms, either the critter is fitted with responses that save it under particular conditions or its not. Natural selection will support the most appropriate responses, and eliminate the least appropriate ones. But there is no emotional or conscious element required, which "fear" implies. There is no internal mental state, not even the urge for survival, to exist. What we might anthropomorphise as an urge to survival in say a bacterium need be nothing more than a kit of the most appropriate responses, honed by natural selection.
Seems, I just repeated much of what you said in this post. Ah well, if not original, at least I am reasonably consistent.

“Proud Member”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#120986 Aug 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA carries information, where did it come from?
Recorded from previous experience,

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120987 Aug 27, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Hey SZ. How are you doing? Haven't seen you in a while.
Good. I went into the heart of the Beast for a while. Taking on creationists on their own ground. I got the naughty boy treatment for pointing out to a fool that he was acting like a fool.

I came here to blow off a little steam by dealing with dishonest idiots directly.

I see wondering still can't be honest, bohart still does not have a clue and jimbo is as crazy as ever.
wondering

Morris, OK

#120988 Aug 27, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Lots of bacteria did die. Or didn't live the length or quality of a life that their nylonase expressing neighbors did. The appearance of nylonase in the population of bacteria is an example of evolution. That is what it is called.
The mutation of the gene that lead to the ability to express nylonase was a chance event. Nonrandom selection acts on this random event and if it results in those individuals with the gene being able to reproduce a greater mean number of offspring. Those that don't have the gene are surviving at best the same as they did before as long as selection favors those with the gene.
Your idea would then require an answer to why those without the gene don't have a survival instinct or at least don't have the same survival instinct. And you would still need to establish a survival instinct to begin with when no evidence supports that such exists. You are just anthropomorphizing bacterial genetics and not proposing a valid alternative to natural selection.
self-preservation is behavior that ensures the survival of an organism. self-preservation is therefore an almost universal hallmark of life, even in simple single celled bacteria.

any reproduction is about survival.(well in humans it is more about fun). no reproduction=no survival. each organism exists as the result of reproduction.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#120989 Aug 27, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Hey, Sub-Z.
I'd give up on this one. You'll have to take him back to "Sesame Street"-level learning just `to start him learning enough English just to start learning all the other things he'd need to know to make a coherent argument.
We're lookin' at years, here.
Hey mac. Didn't see you there. How are you doing? Been a while since I have seen you around as well.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#120990 Aug 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Good. I went into the heart of the Beast for a while. Taking on creationists on their own ground. I got the naughty boy treatment for pointing out to a fool that he was acting like a fool.
I came here to blow off a little steam by dealing with dishonest idiots directly.
I see wondering still can't be honest, bohart still does not have a clue and jimbo is as crazy as ever.
Good to see you back.

Yes, I think that pretty much sums it up. I noticed your stalker is blazing for you. Sorry to see that. If it is any consolation, your running him around is very amusing.
wondering

Morris, OK

#120991 Aug 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Quit being a dishonest idiot.
Your demand was a demand of a proof. I know that science does not deal in proof, but that was the mistake that you made, not I. If you can' t see how you demanded proof then you are an even bigger idiot than I first thought.
There was no dodging on my part. Look how you reacted when I called your demand a question.
If you want answers to questions ask proper questions. Quit being dishonest.
I asked for solid scientific evidence that supports the earth created itself. i did not ask for proof. you are the one that threw proof in as a dodge tactic.

again,,,, this is not a question, "then it is simple. show the solid scientific evidence that says without a doubt, that the universe created itself. show it instead of just stating what you believe." it is a request for you to back what you say.

i see your back to calling it a question after you agreed it wasn't. make up your mind cupcake. lol

1) now lets be clear here.
2) this is not a question
3) therefore I am requesting that you back what you said when I say
4) "then it is simple. show the solid scientific evidence that says without a doubt, that the universe created itself. show it instead of just stating what you believe.(<<notice the period because it is not a question)
5) prediction,,,you will dodge my "REQUEST"/DEMAND and whine about something again.
wondering

Morris, OK

#120992 Aug 27, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Good to see you back.
Yes, I think that pretty much sums it up. I noticed your stalker is blazing for you. Sorry to see that. If it is any consolation, your running him around is very amusing.
randy if you consider me a stalker to sub, then you must be the super ultimate stalker to kab and oneway.
wondering

Morris, OK

#120993 Aug 27, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Recorded from previous experience,
where did the first life get its information? shock treatment?

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#120994 Aug 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Good. I went into the heart of the Beast for a while. Taking on creationists on their own ground. I got the naughty boy treatment for pointing out to a fool that he was acting like a fool.
I came here to blow off a little steam by dealing with dishonest idiots directly.
I see wondering still can't be honest, bohart still does not have a clue and jimbo is as crazy as ever.
Seems your stalker is "looking for fun" and I have caught is eye. Sorry, didn't mean to interfere with what you have going with your Topix Bitch.
wondering

Morris, OK

#120995 Aug 27, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Seems your stalker is "looking for fun" and I have caught is eye. Sorry, didn't mean to interfere with what you have going with your Topix Bitch.
don't you have kab and/or oneway to go stalk and ridicule. that is what you do best.
wondering

Morris, OK

#120996 Aug 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Your lack of education is shown by the questions you ask. It is not childish to point out that fact.
speaking of education. abut a month or so ago myself, dan, dogen, poly and others all told what are education is. you did not. is it perhaps you dodged that as well because you have no education? <<(this is a question)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120997 Aug 27, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked for solid scientific evidence that supports the earth created itself. i did not ask for proof. you are the one that threw proof in as a dodge tactic.
again,,,, this is not a question, "then it is simple. show the solid scientific evidence that says without a doubt, that the universe created itself. show it instead of just stating what you believe." it is a request for you to back what you say.
i see your back to calling it a question after you agreed it wasn't. make up your mind cupcake. lol
1) now lets be clear here.
2) this is not a question
3) therefore I am requesting that you back what you said when I say
4) "then it is simple. show the solid scientific evidence that says without a doubt, that the universe created itself. show it instead of just stating what you believe.(<<notice the period because it is not a question)
5) prediction,,,you will dodge my "REQUEST"/DEMAND and whine about something again.
Quit lying moron, it is not like your post is not still there for all of us to read. Here it is in its entirety:

"then it is simple. show the solid scientific evidence that says without a doubt, that the universe created itself. show it instead of just stating what you believe."

This is asking for proof. It may not be in the form of a proper question it is still asking for proof. You went beyond asking for evidence since you wanted it to show "without a doubt", in other words proof.

Try again. Be polite. Don't be a dishonest idiot, and you will get answers.

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
Dirty Nellie's Ale House (Apr '10) 2 min Luckys Mommmy 7,800
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 5 min Poppyann 4,289
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 6 min Daniel 8,963
Funny!! Word association game. (Nov '13) 7 min Bezeer 4,232
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 7 min Bezeer 14,031
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 7 min Poppyann 60,246
The letter E (Jun '13) 8 min Bezeer 939
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 14 min Black Cow 9,145
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 14 min KILL my DESIRE 201,090
Who won the Presidential debate 2016 ? 26 min andet1987 103
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 53 min Grace Nerissa 61,578
Philly grey poster hangout 1 hr Spotted Girl 92
More from around the web