Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216947 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.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#121741 Sep 4, 2014
I salute the Luftwaffe in this respect. But those Messerschmidt better don't try any funny business.



FREE SERVANT

United States

#121742 Sep 4, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
The Monkeys were a pop rock band and the Byrds were a blues rock and roll band.
Still on the rhythm method with no evidence to suppor it.
Yeah, I expect Kong be laughing at me for not considering the Ape rhythms.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#121743 Sep 4, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't disagree with his use of Dawkin's concept. I am just enjoying the irony of his use of it based on his other statements.
He is a the arrogant German version of us..after all.
Young and full of...lol

Since: Jul 14

Location hidden

#121744 Sep 4, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't disagree with his use of Dawkin's concept. I am just enjoying the irony of his use of it based on his other statements.
dawkins is one of a few exceptions. you idiot. just because 0.1% of British population is intelligent doesn't make Brits intelligent in general. I don't deny that there are intelligent Brits and Americans but they are just a tiny minority. In Germany it is normal to be intelligent. The 90% least intelligent Germans are as intelligent as the 10% most intelligent Americans.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#121745 Sep 4, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
dawkins is one of a few exceptions. you idiot. just because 0.1% of British population is intelligent doesn't make Brits intelligent in general. I don't deny that there are intelligent Brits and Americans but they are just a tiny minority. In Germany it is normal to be intelligent. The 90% least intelligent Germans are as intelligent as the 10% most intelligent Americans.

Koreans are a smarter. I know it sucks those little Asians best you and US in aptitude tests.
OnlyPatchWork

Brewster, NY

#121746 Sep 4, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
dawkins is one of a few exceptions. you idiot. just because 0.1% of British population is intelligent doesn't make Brits intelligent in general. I don't deny that there are intelligent Brits and Americans but they are just a tiny minority. In Germany it is normal to be intelligent. The 90% least intelligent Germans are as intelligent as the 10% most intelligent Americans.
Nonsense.

European Americans tend to be much more intelligent.

Overall, European Americans scored a 103 IQ, beating every single European country.

Polish Americans scored a 109 IQ, while Poland scored a 99 IQ.

Irish Americans scored a 105 IQ, while Ireland scored a 93 IQ.

German Americans scored a 105 IQ, while Germany scored a 102 IQ.

Sources.

http://books.google.com/books...

http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_s...

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_scie...

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121747 Sep 4, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Your logic seems to be that if cars are designed by intelligence, then life must have such a designer as well and that is an old argument that has not been shown to be true.
.
I can agree that it has not been shown to be true scientifically. But neither has it been shown to be false scientifically.
.
However, as with all analogies the car analogy isn't perfect.
.
<quoted text>
I agree, its only an analogy and therefore imperfect. It is only to convey a point.
.
<quoted text>
You haven't dealt with it in the sense that you have shown anything that strongly supports your argument. You have just made claims.
.
I agree again. Since my position is one of faith, I cannot prove it scientifically, neither have I attempted to do so. On the other hand you claim to be moved by science, evidence and reason so this is all I can discuss with you. So I am asking for data that we can look at to see if the conclusions are correct and not influenced by anti-theist bias. Is this unreasonable?
.
<quoted text>
I have previously stated that you forget that two genomes are changing over time since splitting from each other. Selection pressure on each has varied with different traits being selected for and some being lost.
.
I don't dispute this, what I am asking is there enough time to have a common ancestor 5 million years ago considering the millions of changes needed?
.
There have been a chromosomal fusion since the last common ancestor.
.
<quoted text>
This is an inference, based upon the idea of common descent. Look if you claim a 96% similarity in the chromosomes, but we have an extra chromosome (in the chimp), isn't it likely (96%) that we could line up segments to find a similarity?
.
<quoted text>
You seem to be hanging your hat on the number of changes, but not all the changes result in traits,
.
Even if you change the discussion to traits, what traits have we documented in the last 6000 years?
We certainly have many traits different from a chimp.
.
<quoted text>
You don't explain why you think 5 or 6 million years isn't enough time. You just keep repeating it.
.
What I keep asking for is what evidence is there that any significant change is happening? If we haven't seen anything in 6000 years (significant enough to warrant a belief we developed an opposing thumb for instance) why would I believe it can happen quickly? In your lake example we still have a fish. For evolution to be true at some point we have to have a non-fish. This has never been observed. You would think that over the last 150 years with millions (or can I say billions) of species, that we would have observed a new "kind" develop. I also gave the example of bacterial reproduction. The number of generations in the last 150 years is staggering, yet we still have a bacterium. No new "kind" has been observed in 1.35 x 10^8 generations.
.
<quoted text>
There is no set speed on the rate of speciation, nor set changes in each derived species.
.
Isn't this an example of moving the goalpost from a slow steady rate of change to what, we don't know? It was the lack of evidence for this slow steady change the fueled PE. Yet we have never observed any PE. Again with millions of species we should expect this to be observed. But all I get from the opposition is the slow steady change for which we will not be able to observe any new "kind". If I argue there is not enough time, use PE, if we say there is no observation of this kind of change what I am given is the slow steady minute changes as evidence. I hope you can see my frustration with dealing with this.
The chromosome fusion is not based merely on inference. There is evidence from molecular biology showing the fused chromosome is a fused version of the chimpanzee independent chromosomes.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121748 Sep 4, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
What I keep asking for is what evidence is there that any significant change is happening? If we haven't seen anything in 6000 years (significant enough to warrant a belief we developed an opposing thumb for instance) why would I believe it can happen quickly? In your lake example we still have a fish. For evolution to be true at some point we have to have a non-fish. This has never been observed. You would think that over the last 150 years with millions (or can I say billions) of species, that we would have observed a new "kind" develop. I also gave the example of bacterial reproduction. The number of generations in the last 150 years is staggering, yet we still have a bacterium. No new "kind" has been observed in 1.35 x 10^8 generations.
.
<quoted text>
There is no set speed on the rate of speciation, nor set changes in each derived species.
.
Isn't this an example of moving the goalpost from a slow steady rate of change to what, we don't know? It was the lack of evidence for this slow steady change the fueled PE. Yet we have never observed any PE. Again with millions of species we should expect this to be observed. But all I get from the opposition is the slow steady change for which we will not be able to observe any new "kind". If I argue there is not enough time, use PE, if we say there is no observation of this kind of change what I am given is the slow steady minute changes as evidence. I hope you can see my frustration with dealing with this.
I am not the one making a claim that five million years isn't enough time so I can't be moving the goal posts. What that example shows is that change can happen relatively quickly in a geological or evolutionary time frame and five o six million years is a long time. It also shows that rates vary with organisms and environments. The lake was a completely new environment with many newly open niches to fill.

Saying that you challenge five million years as enough time and then saying we haven't seen anything change in a significantly shorter time, might be moving the goal posts. I wouldn't expect to see significant changes in humans like that, but we have evidence of genetic change in human populations even over that time.

No you don't have to show fish evolving into another life form, though the evidence shows that some lines did. Evolution includes change over time. You demand a certain kind of evidence, but you don't seem to understand what you are asking for and what science really says. Yes, you are moving the goal post and not just around the field, but into the next field. Five million years isn't long enough, but 150 years is long enough to see speciation everywhere. Speciation has been observed in plants and animals. Your kind reference has no meaning unless you define what kind means. Bacteria still exist, by your understanding there should be none.

In the 150 years we have grown bacteria in cultures, it has largely been under optimized conditions to maintain the cultures and has not been carried out to make new species. Even if we didn't grow them, 150 years would not be enough time based on what we know of bacteria to suggests new species are popping up in such a short time. The optimized conditions don't put the kind of selection pressure on the populations in culture to lead to new species, however, changes have been observed that directly show evolution. It may not fit the definition you want it to so that you can disregard it, but science understands the change and accepts the evidence.

Your are falling on the assumption that anything that challenges your belief is non-theist (atheist) and that is not true.

You would be well off to read some books on evolution. It would help you ask questions and provide a better understanding than what can be offered on Topix. For instance, you seem to think speciation means that one day a species started having new species and the new always replaces the old.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121749 Sep 4, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
dawkins is one of a few exceptions. you idiot. just because 0.1% of British population is intelligent doesn't make Brits intelligent in general. I don't deny that there are intelligent Brits and Americans but they are just a tiny minority. In Germany it is normal to be intelligent. The 90% least intelligent Germans are as intelligent as the 10% most intelligent Americans.
I think baby needs a change. Somebody has got the poopy pants.

Can you get a normal German to post on here then and explain why you guys always get your asses kicked when you go up against other countries?

Since: Jul 14

Location hidden

#121750 Sep 4, 2014
OnlyPatchWork wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense.
European Americans tend to be much more intelligent.
Overall, European Americans scored a 103 IQ, beating every single European country.
Polish Americans scored a 109 IQ, while Poland scored a 99 IQ.
Irish Americans scored a 105 IQ, while Ireland scored a 93 IQ.
German Americans scored a 105 IQ, while Germany scored a 102 IQ.
Sources.
http://books.google.com/books...
http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_s...
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_scie...
That's a stupid comparison. You are comparing German Americans with Germans that include many Turks. You should compare it with German Germans. Besides the IQ is not a reliable measurement for intelligence.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121751 Sep 4, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> He is a the arrogant German version of us..after all.
Young and full of...lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =wXcdYBh3hggXX
I like to give us more credit hen that. Maybe an German version of wondering.

Since: Jul 14

Location hidden

#121752 Sep 4, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Koreans are a smarter. I know it sucks those little Asians best you and US in aptitude tests.
No they are not. They are just drilled.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121753 Sep 4, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
FYI: I have explained this already twice to him.
Including the junk DNA, the difference between advantageous, disadvantageous and neutral mutations, gene duplications, natural selection, you name it.
He first refuses to address the posts and, of course, after some weeks, he just "forgets".
Now that you mention it, I do recall some of that. I think I have explained it to him before. Well, it is good practice for me to explain anyway. Keeps me sharp.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121754 Sep 4, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a stupid comparison. You are comparing German Americans with Germans that include many Turks. You should compare it with German Germans. Besides the IQ is not a reliable measurement for intelligence.
Getting your ass kicked in two major wars is though.
Cheers Adolph.

Since: Jul 14

Location hidden

#121755 Sep 4, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I think baby needs a change. Somebody has got the poopy pants.
Can you get a normal German to post on here then and explain why you guys always get your asses kicked when you go up against other countries?
We easily won against France in 1871 because they didn't had the support of the whole world. No nation would be able to beat Germany 1:1 in WW1 and WW2.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121756 Sep 4, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because German Shepherds also have opposable thumbs and a large brain compared to their total body mass .... right??
OB, I left you a response to your post the other day. I wasn't making a crack about you. It was directed to HOG, based on your comment.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#121757 Sep 4, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
We easily won against France in 1871 because they didn't had the support of the whole world. No nation would be able to beat Germany 1:1 in WW1 and WW2.
russia would have in WWII

Since: Jul 14

Location hidden

#121758 Sep 4, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>
russia would have in WWII
no russia wouldn't

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#121759 Sep 4, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
no russia wouldn't
didja ever take Stalingrad? couldn't even take a city? why not?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#121760 Sep 4, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
We easily won against France in 1871 because they didn't had the support of the whole world. No nation would be able to beat Germany 1:1 in WW1 and WaW2.
So --- according to YOUR logic ---
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
No nation would be able to beat Germany 1:1 in WW1 and WW2.
---- yet Germany was essentially COERCED (or was that "BULLIED"?) TWICE into starting both wars by England?

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. (Nov '10) 1 min Bezeer 19,920
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 2 min Bezeer 11,169
The Letter "C" (Aug '09) 3 min Bezeer 5,639
The letter E (Jun '13) 3 min Bezeer 1,284
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 4 min Bezeer 6,615
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 5 min Bezeer 9,258
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 9 min Appreciate 207,258
Names, A to Z, ... (Aug '12) 9 min Judy 123 3,447
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 19 min KNIGHT DeVINE 1,532
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 24 min KNIGHT DeVINE 22,245
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 48 min Poppyann 10,656
A to Z songs by title or group! 1 hr Poppyann 34
More from around the web