Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222919 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

#121631 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
Yet even a child can tell you this is a result of intelligent design.
And most could probably give good reasons why.

One of those reasons will NOT be the chain of descent.
messianic114 wrote:
When dealing with evolution, what is more important than genetic similarity? As you stated in your car example similarity in appearance is not that important.
Again, why are you asking for stuff for which you have no interest in?

Especially when it was dealt with MONTHS ago.
messianic114 wrote:
Lastly is seems to me that if evolution is as predicted, we wouldn't expect this similarity with the cow.
And again, we rebutted this last month. Try a base for base comparison and you'll find chimps are closer than cows. When you compare the size and shapes of different genes and chromosomes one has to remember that you can get a new one in just one generation via duplication, but the parents will still be the closest match to the offspring when measuring base for base. Different ways of measuring different aspects of the genome, and you're abusing the systems involved. In which case you can go and perform the same tests as HOG and go and find a cactus in Africa with a genome identical to yours, or a twin brother that spontaneously appeared in China that did not share your parents.

Best of luck to ya, Messy.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121632 Sep 3, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Because there is evidence of manufactured items. You really need that explained to you? The idea of the intelligent creator/designer requires some evidence before you can make that assumption, and please remember it was never a conviction, more of an assertion in place of knowledge. You are repeating the old watchmaker argument that's been out of date for well over a century.
Actually there was doubt about a creator well before science began. Religious tracts rarely could answer real questions. Patterns in natural events were well documented without requiring the need for a deity. Ideas on non-religious origins for most phenomena predates the beginning of a methodical approach we call science. Many inventions were done, lenses come to mind, about 2700 years before science was used to fully explain how they worked. I don't recall reading about how someone prayed over a pile of sand and it turned into not only glass, but the precise shape needed for vision, or a telescope? When you want something made, you rarely turned to a deity.
Your last question is silly. Concrete is a man-made product not a natural one. It's made all over the world in a multitude of formulas and ingredients. While various natural mixes can approximate some of the characteristics of concrete, it's not concrete. I live not 5 miles from a concrete plant, yet the concrete foundation and basement for my house originated from over 50 miles away and mixed on-site. The concrete used in my neighbors house was from 5 miles away. The reasons were economic and technical when it comes to concrete availability, there are also timing issues when ordering certain quantities.
Do you bother putting gas in your car? Why? Because of science and engineering. If your deity was on the job, a quick prayer should be enough to keep your tank topped off, right?
.
<quoted text>
I don't recall reading about how someone prayed over a pile of sand and it turned into not only glass, but the precise shape needed for vision, or a telescope?
.
Yet you expect me to believe that given enough time a more complex molecule would develop in a primordial soup?
.
<quoted text>
Do you bother putting gas in your car? Why? Because of science and engineering. If your deity was on the job, a quick prayer should be enough to keep your tank topped off, right?
.
If we were to assume that a G-d existed that could speak the universe into existence, don't you think he would have more sense than to be a Santa Claus? If he were everyone would serve him not out of love but out of greed!
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121633 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And most could probably give good reasons why.
One of those reasons will NOT be the chain of descent.
<quoted text>
Again, why are you asking for stuff for which you have no interest in?
Especially when it was dealt with MONTHS ago.
<quoted text>
And again, we rebutted this last month. Try a base for base comparison and you'll find chimps are closer than cows. When you compare the size and shapes of different genes and chromosomes one has to remember that you can get a new one in just one generation via duplication, but the parents will still be the closest match to the offspring when measuring base for base. Different ways of measuring different aspects of the genome, and you're abusing the systems involved. In which case you can go and perform the same tests as HOG and go and find a cactus in Africa with a genome identical to yours, or a twin brother that spontaneously appeared in China that did not share your parents.
Best of luck to ya, Messy.
.
As usual you said nothing. I didn't write the study, I just referenced it. If you made a criticism of the study I didn't see it. You could have referenced a post# but you didn't as usual. Secondly, what confidence do I have in your opinion of a published study? Do you have a degree in genetics?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#121634 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
I don't recall reading about how someone prayed over a pile of sand and it turned into not only glass, but the precise shape needed for vision, or a telescope?
.
Yet you expect me to believe that given enough time a more complex molecule would develop in a primordial soup?
.
<quoted text>
Do you bother putting gas in your car? Why? Because of science and engineering. If your deity was on the job, a quick prayer should be enough to keep your tank topped off, right?
.
If we were to assume that a G-d existed that could speak the universe into existence, don't you think he would have more sense than to be a Santa Claus? If he were everyone would serve him not out of love but out of greed!
You do serve out of greed. Greed and fear. Your only interest is avoiding eternal torment or the attainment of eternal paradise. Hence you're not even serving Him, you are serving yourself.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#121635 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
As usual you said nothing. I didn't write the study, I just referenced it. If you made a criticism of the study I didn't see it. You could have referenced a post# but you didn't as usual. Secondly, what confidence do I have in your opinion of a published study? Do you have a degree in genetics?
Do you? Even better, do you have evidence that the study you linked to was written by someone who did not accept evolution and/or was claiming that this demonstrated evolution to be incorrect?

It wasn't any genuine scientific studies we criticized, it was your misinterpretations of it. And we KNOW you didn't see our criticisms because you always ignore whatever is theologically inconvenient. Maybe if you could address what we ACTUALLY said for once. Or even better, just go find ONE geneticist who outright claims that DNA can NOT be used to measure common ancestry. Email the guy/gal if you have to. Until then you're just dodging as usual.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#121636 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Yet you expect me to believe that given enough time a more complex molecule would develop in a primordial soup?
No, I am not asking you to believe it. What I am asking you is to keep your religious beliefs out of the science classroom! I don't care what you wish to believe. What I expect is for you to live up to the Constitution and not force your religious beliefs on everyone else. You can live as long as you want in 1850, the rest of us will keep dragging you through the decades and centuries in spite of your religious beliefs with technology and medical advancements. If you had been at Kitty Hawk in 1903 you would have been one deriding the Wright Brothers for daring to attempt and control flight.
If we were to assume that a G-d existed that could speak the universe into existence, don't you think he would have more sense than to be a Santa Claus? If he were everyone would serve him not out of love but out of greed!
Instead most seem to believe in God out of fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of dying, fear of eternal damnation ... pretty long list. Not much of a God that requires fear to gain adherents. If you disagree, read a few of the posts on Topix that Christians use to try and convince people of their point of view, they frequently threaten them with all sorts of afterlife retribution if they fail to toe the line in this life. I don't think much of your God if anything those Christians say is true.

Now I, on the other hand, live my life in this lifetime, not the next. When I screw up, I deal with it in this life rather than assume some afterlife to make things right. I take responsibility instead of begging for absolution from my mistakes. Rather than offering some imagined deity some sort of weekly obsequious rite, I stand on my own two feet and accept responsibility for my life and how I live it. If any deity has issues with that, they are free to come on and talk to me about it.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121637 Sep 3, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>Now, the real question. Why can a child identify an object like a car as a manufactured item? It's called experience. Even a child has experience in good produced by people. It is an assumption to say that the same concept can be automatically be assigned to biological organisms. There is no evidence supporting it where there is much evidence of manufactured goods.<quoted text>No, what I stated with that the appearance is only part of the equation. And you cannot assume appearance is a reality. Yes, there are many biological organisms that have the appearance of being designed. But that appearance doesn't automatically mean they were designed by an intelligence of any sort. <quoted text>Actually we have many documented similarities between many mammals, including cows. Why wouldn't there be? The similarities are part of the the theory of common descent, which is part of the over arching theory of evolution. Seems like the similarities confirm the theories rather than refute them.
.
<quoted text>
Now, the real question. Why can a child identify an object like a car as a manufactured item? It's called experience.
.
I like this answer, what experience do we have that can tell us that Tiktaalik had relatives that were fish and descendants that are amphibians? As you admitted you have none.
.
<quoted text>
Actually we have many documented similarities between many mammals, including cows. Why wouldn't there be? The similarities are part of the the theory of common descent, which is part of the over arching theory of evolution. Seems like the similarities confirm the theories rather than refute them.
.
And why would I not also use these similarities to argue a common designer?
wondering

Morris, OK

#121638 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you? Even better, do you have evidence that the study you linked to was written by someone who did not accept evolution and/or was claiming that this demonstrated evolution to be incorrect?
It wasn't any genuine scientific studies we criticized, it was your misinterpretations of it. And we KNOW you didn't see our criticisms because you always ignore whatever is theologically inconvenient. Maybe if you could address what we ACTUALLY said for once. Or even better, just go find ONE geneticist who outright claims that DNA can NOT be used to measure common ancestry. Email the guy/gal if you have to. Until then you're just dodging as usual.
various studies show various answers.

- chimpanzees are 90% to 97% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- cows are 80% to 86% genetically similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- cats have 90% to 92% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice, depending on how it is calculated.
- mice 75% to 79% of genes have equivalents in humans. 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome. 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- fruit fly shares about 60% to 62% of its DNA with humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- chickens about 60% to 64% of genes correspond to a similar human genes, depending on how it is calculated.

i think the mouse thing has some significance for many people are dirty little rats. lol

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#121639 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>

I like this answer, what experience do we have that can tell us that Tiktaalik had relatives that were fish and descendants that are amphibians? As you admitted you have none.
Where did I admit that? Let's see, Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil between fish and four legged animals. Why would a paleontologist make such a determination? I think you might look at experience and education. The structures match predictions made by evolutionary theory. The dating of the samples also corresponds with evolutionary predictions of when such creatures would have existed. The type of find was predicted and lo and behold, it came true. If the dating of the Tiktaalik put it farther in the past or even closer to modern times, it might have called into question parts of evolutionary theory. But it did not. We've discovered many transitional forms, and so far they all fit pretty nicely within evolutionary theory. One error many Creationist make is assuming Biology stands alone. Biology is well supported by Physics, Chemistry, Paleontology, Geography, and even Climatology, to name a few. You might question one or two fossil finds, and you might even find that as we discover more fossils the exact position in the chain of descent might shift, but that's the strength of science.Because of the physical structures Tiktaalik will remain between fish and 4-legged mammals. The people making those determinations are the ones with the training and experience to make them. Arm-chair Creationists who don't like it need more than their dislike to change it.
And why would I not also use these similarities to argue a common designer?
Because then you would be adding in a factor that has no support. You can conceptualize a common designer all you like, but all it does is complicate the picture because there is no evidence supporting a designer, the evidence only supports common descent. It's like if I make the claim flowers were caused by pixies. Unless I offer actual evidence of pixies, I cannot insert pixies into picture just because I want to believe in them. That's not how science works.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#121640 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
I like this answer, what experience do we have that can tell us that Tiktaalik had relatives that were fish and descendants that are amphibians? As you admitted you have none.
On the contrary, it's because evolution predicted creatures such as Tiktaalik to be found in that particular strata - creatures with both fish and amphibian characteristics.
messianic114 wrote:
And why would I not also use these similarities to argue a common designer?
Oh, plenty have. It's just you have no evidence nor good reason (beyond theological wishes) to argue for it.

Common design practices are done for only two reasons: learning curve. That places EXTREME limits on your god. The other is saving on time and/or resources. Something which an all-powerful immortal designer has an infinite supply of. Also you would have to explain why the designer would specifically limit itself to nested hierarchies. Common design doesn't have to. We can use commonly found parts for compound eyes and put them on a pig. Or give horses wings. Or give gorillas beaks. These things violate nested hierarchies but still adhere to common design. Just as we can put rockets on cars. Wheels on top of a building - pointless, but we can. Common design. Mix and match any design elements you like from a pile of parts.

Evolution on the other hand is limited to nested hierarchies. If you claim common design is too then all you're doing is claiming evolution's predictions AFTER the fact. And are therefore also claiming that the designer used evolution, or made it LOOK like it used evolution.

But as it is there's zero evidence this designer of yours even exists, much less DID anything.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121641 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You do serve out of greed. Greed and fear. Your only interest is avoiding eternal torment or the attainment of eternal paradise. Hence you're not even serving Him, you are serving yourself.
.
This is just another assertion by you which you have no evidence. No surprise there!
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#121642 Sep 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
various studies show various answers.
- chimpanzees are 90% to 97% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- cows are 80% to 86% genetically similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- cats have 90% to 92% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice, depending on how it is calculated.
- mice 75% to 79% of genes have equivalents in humans. 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome. 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- fruit fly shares about 60% to 62% of its DNA with humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- chickens about 60% to 64% of genes correspond to a similar human genes, depending on how it is calculated.
i think the mouse thing has some significance for many people are dirty little rats. lol
Same applies to you Wonder Woman. Give me a cactus genetically identical to yourself or a twin brother in China that's not related to your parents. After all both these scenarios (and many more besides) are viable if DNA is not an indicator of common ancestry. Stop distorting the different methods of comparing our genomes, give evidence that evolution is false or an alternative explanation which does a better job of explaining the evidence.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#121643 Sep 3, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
I am God.
This is true because I say so and God can't lie.
I am God.
The above is a circular argument. You may accept it as truth if you wish.
More accurately, a circular argument would take the form of "I am God because/therefore I am God".

Interestingly, there is nothing to deny in such arguments...

The argument may be described as TRUTHFUL; but that is not the same as saying that it is THE TRUTH.

Your assertions become questionable when you begin to state or describe the implications of you being "God".
wondering

Morris, OK

#121644 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Same applies to you Wonder Woman. Give me a cactus genetically identical to yourself or a twin brother in China that's not related to your parents. After all both these scenarios (and many more besides) are viable if DNA is not an indicator of common ancestry. Stop distorting the different methods of comparing our genomes, give evidence that evolution is false or an alternative explanation which does a better job of explaining the evidence.
who says evolution is false? that is always your first cry when you are shown different things. why don't you instead of spewing out insults that are meaningless and crying "show evolution to be false",,,,, just refute what is posted.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121646 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Same applies to you Wonder Woman. Give me a cactus genetically identical to yourself or a twin brother in China that's not related to your parents. After all both these scenarios (and many more besides) are viable if DNA is not an indicator of common ancestry. Stop distorting the different methods of comparing our genomes, give evidence that evolution is false or an alternative explanation which does a better job of explaining the evidence.
you say "stop distorting the different methods of comparing our genomes",
1) they are not my methods
2) they are science methods
3) if you would quit acting like a programmed robot you could read more up on it yourself.

for my post of similarities:
1) chimpanzees source: http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD020730.ht...
2) cat source: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/11/1675.fu...
3) cow source: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5926/52...
4) mouse source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n69...
5) fruit fly source: http://www.genome.gov/10005835
6) chicken source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/...

as I said various studies produce various answers. there are a few and I am sure if you do web searches you can find more.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#121647 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
... preachers don't demonstrate Gods.
And if a real Jesus ever did, the evidence of this was lost 2,000 years ago. Oh well...
Oh.

I see.

So that justifies your failure to accept the fact of his existence?

I wont even bother going into any reasoning with you...

I have been down that road before and the only thing it lead me to is the realization that you are intellectually irredeemable.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#121648 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
...False. For instance we have evidence of T-Rex BECAUSE we have contemporary evidence...
What exactly is contemporayry evidenc of T-Rex?

Describe it.

IS there evidence apart from the REMAINS that are left from the PAST lives of T-rex?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#121649 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
...But we can at least see a man holding a knife over a dead corpse, which is at least evidence of a man holding a knife that is buried in a corpse...
And with that you could send an innocent man to jail; simply because of the "evidence" you have experienced/witnessed.

The man could in fact have been trying to assist the man who was stabbed prior to his arrival on the scene.

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE TRUTH.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#121650 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Go ask the fundies.(shrug)
It's them who claim that God could not have used evolution because God is limited by some ancient book that says the Earth is flat.
<quoted text>
Sure. It was called theism.
<quoted text>
Poor analogy. Concrete can be made in many places on the planet. However if you want a genome that looks like 50 percent HOG's Pa and 50 percent HOG's Ma plus between one and two hundred different bases then the only way of doing that if by Ma and Pa... well, you know. We know this because the mechanisms of DNA reproduction are quite well understood by scientists and have been observed ever since its discovery in the 1950's.
But if you can point to a cactus in Africa with DNA that matches your own, or point to another HOG with matching genome that spontaneously appeared in China then we'd be happy to consider the evidence should you present it.
Until then we shall assume that DNA acts like, well, DNA.(shrug)
NONE OF THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE PARTICULAR DISCUSSION i WAS HAVING WITH TED.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121651 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Same applies to you Wonder Woman. Give me a cactus genetically identical to yourself or a twin brother in China that's not related to your parents. After all both these scenarios (and many more besides) are viable if DNA is not an indicator of common ancestry. Stop distorting the different methods of comparing our genomes, give evidence that evolution is false or an alternative explanation which does a better job of explaining the evidence.
science and its finding are in the same line as trucks and their performance, businessís and there performance, hospitals and their performance, electronics and their performance stc. etc.. they all pay someone to analyze them to say they are the best and say they are right and number one. using trucks in this analogy every year we see some company say dodge is best, another company will say ford is best, another company will say chevy is best and yet another company will say toyota is best. they all can not be the best but shell out that $$ and they can be.

if you pay enough to the right experts they will say and back what you want them to. we live in a world where money is the main speaker(greed) and money can buy the best experts to verify (be it honestly or dishonestly) the evidence presented to them as accurate and correct. the highest price buys the best results. those little dude are the facts.

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
What's for dinner? (Feb '12) 2 min Parden Pard 9,538
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 5 min CJ Rocker 12,460
Only Three Word (Nov '09) 19 min Brandiiiiiiii 14,175
A Five Letter Word (Jan '12) 20 min Brandiiiiiiii 3,112
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 23 min Dave 224,568
True False Game (Jun '11) 25 min Brandiiiiiiii 15,776
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 26 min In All Actuality 29,150
What's your tip for the day? (Jul '14) 46 min CJ Rocker 2,550
News Thong jeans are just the latest weird fashion t... 5 hr andet1987 12
More from around the web