Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223366 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121832 Sep 5, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
With a track record like that I find it highly amusing how the US picks in the far superior war record of France.
I thought it was the Italians we picked on.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#121833 Sep 5, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
If nothing we could actually observe hasn't been recorded in 6000 years then I doubt that it has happened or will happen.
.
You lean to a fossil record which does not prove one animal descended from another and disregard the millions of observed generations without change.
.
I don't expect to change your mind but possibly someone will read these posts and see you not EVER giving any data that can be verified.
.
Additionally observation is telling us there are no new creatures. If we have had no change in kind in observed bacteria in over 135 million generations, assuming that tomorrow something happened in a culture where we could say that a new kind has occurred, then how long would it take to get a new hominid? 135 million generations at 24 years a generation? This puts us back before the Cambrian era. Further extrapolation leads us to conclude that life cannot have formed in 15 billion years. There is not enough time.
Along with moving the goal posts, you seem interested in developing a technique known as the straw man argument. We have a fossil record that is evidence of species evolving over time and new species arising and falling over the age of the earth. Your straw man is the ambiguous and undefined term of "kind". You attack that rather than what science actually says and shows. Your fall back is the typical fall back of creationists. No one has seen change from one "kind" to another "kind". There are numerous phenomenon in the natural world that science describes and technology exploits that are not seen directly. These computers we are using operate exploiting many things that are not directly seen. Your job is much more monumental than you suppose. You have to explain away all such phenomena, if you attack even one example. You have to show that what we know is not real in order to show that what we know about evolution and the natural world is not as it is described.

You seem so sure that evolution is wrong, so perhaps this will be simple for you. I will be interested in seeing your evidence.

You might first try to understand the actual concepts of evolution, natural selection and speciation.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121834 Sep 5, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
What, you think you're special? You can see us slaughter every fundie on these forums nearly every day for years, so why are you only complaining about it now??
:-/
little dude here is my original post.

"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 "

now where in there or anywhere do I say or does this try to imply evolution is false? if anything with the similarities it supports evolution. what it does do is show the falseness in messianic114 post of " Lastly I hyperlinked a study which showed the genetic similarity between cow and man was closer than chimp and man".

you just programmed to rant at a name/person and not what they say. that is your stupidity not mine.

so again what about this set you off in your little fit of accusing me of thinking it disproves evolution and acting like you are evolutions guard dog?

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#121835 Sep 5, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't confuse Nazis with Germans. These are two totally different things.
You are right. Germany and the German people are not like you and the Nazis. Your Douche heritage is probably what links you.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#121836 Sep 5, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Take a zygote then watch it develop into a human. Complexity as a natural result over time. My claims have evidence that passes the scientific method. Yours do not. And you are incapable of refuting us.
Game. Set. Match.
And that was before you even showed up.
Secondary succession of an ecosystem shows increasing complexity over time as well. We have been able to run that experiment very often.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121837 Sep 5, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
why is it called rabbit in the US? Such a stupid name for such a great car.
Ask the Germans.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121838 Sep 5, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So Mike got upset when the engineer jokes were hot stuff so tell me, how many wars has the US won one off its own bat in the last 100 years?
Nah. I didn't get upset. I even posted an engineer joke.

I do get a little annoyed when anyone suggests all engineers are fundie types though.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#121839 Sep 5, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Vechta is not my hometown. It is the district town. The software of this forum is too stupid to find my true hometown. Even in your dreams you couldn't pronounce my true hometown, correctly. And Vechta doesn't sound like the sound of vomiting at all. I am a proud Vechtaraner but it isn't the name of my city but it is a city in the district of Vechta. It would be funny to listen to the pathetic tries of Americans to pronounce "Vechtaraner".
I will get some syrup of ipecac and see what I can come up with.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121840 Sep 5, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Of course that didn't work out so well for the US in the long run as now we have had to deal with Iraq, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Which, I will grant,*IS* an example of American stupidity. We never should have gone there.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#121841 Sep 5, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
What I always enjoy is listening to someone who gets their science from Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh. The rationale is the killer, they claim that the scientist who makes often less than $50K a year is twisting the results for the money, but the multimillionaire political pundit is telling you the truth because he's concerned about your welfare. I usually say 'pull the other one, that leg is long enough!'
The other part that kills me is when a scientist is fooled by the money and twists his results, we discovers it? The arm-chair Creationist, the political pundit, or other scientists trying to replicate and confirm the original work?
It might take a while, as an example the Kehoe Paradigm that came out the 1920's leaded gasoline controversy. But eventually science gets it right! Who uncovered the PiltDown Man hoax? Who eventually confirned the Continental Drift Hypothesis? Again, not the arm-chair Creationist or the Political Pundit, but scientists each and every time.
Oh man. My advisor would play Limbaugh every day back in his early radio days. I recall listening to a story he told about the swallows did not return to Capistrano that year. He used this to justify a position that logging companies should be allowed to cut down old growth forest because the spotted owl would simply find a new place to go. I really didn't even know who Limbaugh was at the time and it was just noise in the lab, but when I heard that, I knew I was listening to an idiot.

Often these "arm-chair" intellectuals don't even understand what they are arguing. Their presence is based purely on political or religious ideologies and not facts. The worst are those that have gone beyond ideologies and moved into delusional conspiracies as the basis for the views. But based on the points you make, I remain optimistic that science will continue to be a bright and shining beacon among these "dark age, arm-chair pilots".

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#121842 Sep 5, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Which, I will grant,*IS* an example of American stupidity. We never should have gone there.
I accept our action in Afghanistan, but the idea that we can bring democracy to this region by military force wasn't very well thought out.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121843 Sep 5, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
.
<quoted text>
You are making value judgments about historical and present conditions that don't apply.
.
You are quibbling over words, substitute less complex to more complex, substitute less intelligent to more intelligent. This is an answer which doesn't deal with the issue. The issue is for evolution to be true we have to have progressed from a single cell to a man. If you don't think that is better so be it. Do you think we have more intelligence or are more complex?
.
<quoted text>
We don't see diversity and complexity as the result of an intelligent designer, simply because there is no evidence for such a designer that has ever been found.
.
That is evidence of a designer. Experience tells us complex things don't arise by chance or unguided reactions over long periods of time. What proof do you have that life can spontaneously appear and progress to where it is now in 5 billion years? Has this been observed or inferred? Is there a mathematical model based upon observed data that this is possible?
.
<quoted text>
It says that based on all the evidence, every scrap we have accumulated, life on earth has developed from a common ancestry through descent with change over time.
.
Where evidence and reason differ with your opinion you reject as evidence. At least some scientists (non creationists) can admit they too do not see enough time to have life on this planet at its current stage in 5 billion years. That is why they postulate that life came from outer space. This may push back the problem but it is evident to them evolution is not happening fast enough.
.
<quoted text>
Science no longer argues over the fact of evolution and now spends its efforts on how it occurred and how things are related. evolution is not happening quickly enough.
.
This is a general statement which excludes all scientists who are creationists. This is stacking the deck asking me to pick a card and then telling me which card it is because you have eliminated all other possibilities.
.
<quoted text>
Am I supposed to deny what I see with my own eyes?
.
What do you think you are doing when you can see from observation no change in kind in 135 million generations?
.
<quoted text>
Am I supposed to deny valid research, objective evaluation of the evidence and rational conclusions because it doesn't support a global flood or Adam and Eve as actual events.
.
I would not agree this is objective. Once you have a priori eliminated the supernatural it is no longer objective.
.
Speaking of Adam and Eve, I recall a study which said the original Eve was calculated to be 50,000 years ago. Then they tried to calculate the original Adam with the same method and came up with 40,000 years ago. Even though I assume there were assumptions made and I would disagree with the length of time, I find it interesting that biblically speaking all women are descended from one woman (Eve), but all men are descended from one man (Noah). The ratio of 40/50 explains the time difference between Eve and Noah.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121844 Sep 5, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't give any assertions.
So just checking - mutations, are they random or non-random?
.
You asserted my math was wrong. You have the chance to correct me now. How many genetic changes are need per year to make a 4% difference between the human genome and a chimp in a 5 million year period?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121845 Sep 5, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't interested in evidence. We rule out divine intervention by way of Occam's razor.
.
Intelligent design is the least complex answer. I think William of Occam would agree.
.
I would also point out this is a philosophical answer not a scientific one.
.
<quoted text>
You aren't interested in evidence.
.
How would you know... you never give any. Just as in this response there is no data. You don't even give a scientific response.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121846 Sep 5, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I accept our action in Afghanistan, but the idea that we can bring democracy to this region by military force wasn't very well thought out.
I didn't have a problem with kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. He asked for it. Of course, HW had enough sense to know when to stop.

Afghanistan didn't work out too well for the Russians. No reason to think we could do any better.

"Never get involved in a land war in Asia"
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121847 Sep 5, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>We don't see it, because there is no evidence for it. The evidence of the cosmos is not obvious evidence of a designer. What intelligent design is, is a theology and not science.
What I believe is not relevant to science. I can't support my belief with solid evidence, though I believe it strongly. The evidence of science doesn't change my beliefs or say there is no God. It just refines my understanding of those beliefs.
.
That's funny, I think I saw a video of R. Dawkins saying, yes there is an appearence of design but...
.
This is why they now speculate in multiverses, because they know the odds of our universe happening by chance is so unimaginable (statistically speaking) that if they can theorize an infinite number of universes, one would certainly appear designed by chance.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121848 Sep 5, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Biological evolution is based on biological Systems. A car is not a biological System. Look at this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =mcAq9bmCeR0XX
It also works for cars.
Tell me, are Canadians as stupid as Americans? At the moment you act like a typical American.
.
<quoted text>
Biological evolution is based on biological Systems. A car is not a biological System.
.
Really?????
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121849 Sep 5, 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...
.
Looks like Prof Goebbels is still working the German public.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#121850 Sep 5, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Then I can count on you finally realizing this and you will stop the nonsense of asking for a scientific answer to a non-scientific explanation?
Irony meter sizzles.... When are you going to stop touting the Bible as having >anything at all< to do with the sciences?

Since: Jul 14

Location hidden

#121851 Sep 5, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Nein?
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party)
So what? DDR meant deutsche demokratische Republik (german democratic republic) and it wasn't a democratic republic. it was communism.

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
A Potpourri of Expressions in Words & Rhyme (Sep '12) 15 min wichita-rick 1,243
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 31 min Jerry 12,020
A six word game (Dec '08) 1 hr Pardon Pard 21,490
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 1 hr Pardon Pard 62,699
2words into 2new words (May '12) 1 hr Doobie Time 9,391
Poll How Long Have You Won in "Last Post Wins" thread? (Jan '09) 2 hr tiger_-_dad 7,072
The Next Person Game (Mar '11) 3 hr -TheExam- 10,850
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 6 hr Camilla 230,153
WHo ARe YOu THinking ABout RIght NOw (Jul '13) 8 hr Alyssa76 1,132
Stupid things to ponder ... (Feb '08) 13 hr A winner 7,945