Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216895 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.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#73095 Jan 29, 2013
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7803373/Fossil...

"A study by ancient DNA researchers at Western Australia's Murdoch University has found the hereditary material cannot survive more than 6.8 million years. Most dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago."

"To establish how long bone DNA could survive, Dr Bunce and fellow researcher Morten Allentoft carbon-dated bones from 158 moa, the extinct New Zealand bird."

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#73096 Jan 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7803373/Fossil...
"A study by ancient DNA researchers at Western Australia's Murdoch University has found the hereditary material cannot survive more than 6.8 million years. Most dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago."
"To establish how long bone DNA could survive, Dr Bunce and fellow researcher Morten Allentoft carbon-dated bones from 158 moa, the extinct New Zealand bird."
there was only one method of dating mentioned, and that was one of carbon dating.

how can you determine that "hereditary material cannot survive more than 6.8 million years" from carbon dating if it breaks down at 60,000years?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#73097 Jan 29, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
The writer of the article (NOT the scientist) was likely under the same misunderstanding as to radiometric dating that you are that EVERY such dating is "Carbon Dating".
In fact, there are (as previously stated) over 40 different methods used for different time periods.
oh, didn't see your post...so your saying the article was misconstrued by the writer.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#73098 Jan 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocomputers#Eng...
The development of biocomputers has been made possible by the expanding new science of nanobiotechnology. The term nanobiotechnology can be defined in multiple ways; in a more general sense, nanobiotechnology can be defined as any type of technology that uses both nano-scale materials, i.e. materials having characteristic dimensions of 1-100 nanometers, as well as biologically based materials....
"as well as biologically based materials...."
(bi·o·log·i·cal...
Of, relating to, caused by, or affecting life or living organisms...)
You really are an idiot. Bone is a biological material, so is feces, so is saliva. You need to learn English.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#73099 Jan 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
there was only one method of dating mentioned, and that was one of carbon dating.
how can you determine that "hereditary material cannot survive more than 6.8 million years" from carbon dating if it breaks down at 60,000years?
Because hereditary material is carbon based, duh.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#73100 Jan 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have some evidence that the universe is intelligent, I'd love to see it.
<quoted text>
You're starting to sound like Chuckles.
Just admit that you have no defence of your point.
You have been pissing your self up since 1949. Huh!

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#73101 Jan 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
How about nuclear fusion...
would you say that a human built nuclear reactor was of intelligent design?...of course, anyone would.
But to claim that a star, doing the exact same process is undemonstrated as an intelligent process, is ludicrous.
Universal Intelligence is a term used by some to describe what they see as organization, or order of the universe. It has been described as "the intrinsic tendency for things to self-organize and co-evolve into ever more complex, intricately interwoven and mutually compatible forms."

In attempting to design an artificial machine intelligence, the term universal intelligence is a descriptive term based on a mathematical formula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Intell...

There is math in everything. That's the universal language and the universal intelligence of everything! It's simple matrix.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#73102 Jan 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the truth of the matter is, Science has to tie ID in with religious creationism to avoid the real issue...that of an obvious intelligent process behind the Universe.
The very same ploy is used to tie Christianity in with the barbaric practices of the historical hebrewic culture. The one's that the Christ abhored and spoke out against. There can be no real argument against the true teaching of Christ,so it's one of non existence...
That why on this thread there is very little mention about the Christ.
lol It's virtually the same ploy that they use when passing a bill...you have to accept this bill with these conditions....
But faith has no conditions...and that is why it is emphasized in many of his teachings.
You write:
“Actually the truth of the matter is, Science has to tie ID in with religious creationism to avoid the real issue...that of an obvious intelligent process behind the Universe.”

Well it was the courts that made the final decision; Intelligent Design is nothing more than Creation Science (religion) rebranded. And the court was right. There is no obvious intelligence process behind the universe, and there is no obvious intelligence behind Intelligent Design.

You write:
“The very same ploy is used to tie Christianity in with the barbaric practices of the historical hebrewic <sic> culture. The one's that the Christ abhored <sic> and spoke out against. There can be no real argument against the true teaching of Christ, so it's one of non existence...”

It is my understanding that Jesus was a Hebrew and remained one through-out his life. I think you would find that the dreams and aspirations of the average Jew today is about the same as the average Christian. They just don’t believe that Jesus was the messiah…and they might be on to something.

Anyway, all of that is superfluous to Intelligent Design being religion and you’re trying to insert Christian religion into secular schools. If you want your children to know the religion, teach it in your home or send your kids to religious schools.

Just be aware that you are dumbing down your children and they might not be able to integrate into modern work situations. Also, they may be pretty mad at you when they finally find out all that religious stuff is just a big scam.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#73103 Jan 30, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>But your so called scientific evidence can not truly and sincerely answer the basic questions of humans and how the universe emerged.
That's right. We do not know everything about how the universe emerged. Neither do you. At what point can you be honest enough to say "I don't know, nobody knows"?

Yet we do know a lot. We know how life evolved, even if we do not know how it got started. We know how gravity works, even if we are not sure how at the fundamental level. We know how light and electricity and magnetism work. About tectonic plate movement. About stellar evolution. About the Big Bang and inflation. About how particles combine to form elements which combine to form molecules and all the substances we see around us. All of this was once a mystery, and now its not.

But you try to suggest that its all valueless because science can not answer the ultimate question of existence. Religion cannot either. Think just saying "God did it" really answers that question? It does not.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#73104 Jan 30, 2013
ztormbringer wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, actually it has, over 20 years ago experiments with contained conditions holding what science at that time considered the "primordial soup" mixture of chemicals in solution and in atmosphere subjected to high voltage electrical arc to replicate lightning produced proto amino acid chains - the building blocks of life as we know it, those when further stimulated began to organize in more complex structures - indistinguishable from the posited first living things on earth - the experiment was shut down out of fear of and pressure from religious groups and the subsequent withdrawal of funding. The data published was directly instrumental in the later successful cloning experiments.
Even as an evolutionist I cannot accept your claims. We have produced many of life's building blocks, but still have not shown how they came together in the right way to produce the first living organism.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#73105 Jan 30, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
At what point does carbon dating break down?
And how would you really know if it did or didn't?
Carbon dating is only good for up to 60,000 years because the material it measures, C-14, decays into other materials with a half life of just over 5000 years. By the time you get past 60K, there is so little remaining that its not measurable against background noise.

For older materials, other decaying isotopes are used with half lives from thousands of years to several billion years. However, only carbon-14 is actually IN the specimen. For the older datings, they date the rocks around and above the fossil, and they can only be certain types of rock too.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#73106 Jan 30, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Then there can be no real evidence to trace how chickens evolved from dinosaurs without DNA evidence.
We still have the fossil record. It now includes 30+ species that share feathers along with characteristics of therapod dinosaurs.

A chicken would not have evolved from a dinosaur directly. Some early bird evolved from a dinosaur - from something like that bunch above. It then evolved into a bird that evolved in a radiation to other early birds which radiated to other bird and another bird etc. Meanwhile dinosaurs also continued to evolve until they were devastated 65 million years ago.

A chicken is just one of the recent iterations of bird evolution.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#73107 Jan 30, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You have no evidence either.
There is piles of evidence, from the cosmic microwave background radiation, to the red shift, to observations of galaxies billions of light years away (essentially looking at them as they were more than 10 billion years ago, because that is how long it took for their light to reach us).

These were the EVIDENCE that led scientists to accept the Big Bang, a theory that was not popular until observation confirmed its predictions. And we can now add inflation to that, as an event that occurred just after the big bang itself.
Anonymous

Ashburn, VA

#73108 Jan 30, 2013
Professor wrote:
Even if evolution is true (and there is plenty of evidence to support it), scientists cannot explain how the very first cell came into existence.
After the Big Bang, the universe was sterile. SOMETHING happened to cause life to appear out of nothing.
I recommend you to read Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design.
FREE SERVANT
#73109 Jan 30, 2013
It didn't take billions of years for the heavens and the earth to become formed and the earth was formed from water. It may take a long time for evos to catch up with the truth however........

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#73110 Jan 30, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
It didn't take billions of years for the heavens and the earth to become formed and the earth was formed from water. It may take a long time for evos to catch up with the truth however........
Erm .... what? "The Earth was formed from water?" No, if it was then what are we standing on?
FREE SERVANT
#73111 Jan 30, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Erm .... what? "The Earth was formed from water?" No, if it was then what are we standing on?
The word of God says it came about by the dividing of the waters. This is how the other elements were seperated from what was water to begin with and the dry part became solid earth. This is how it happened and the Bible tells us about it.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#73112 Jan 30, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The word of God says it came about by the dividing of the waters. This is how the other elements were seperated from what was water to begin with and the dry part became solid earth. This is how it happened and the Bible tells us about it.
Which is impossible. For water to collect the Earth's solid surface would have to exist first so that the water would have somewhere to pool onto. Duh.
FREE SERVANT
#73113 Jan 30, 2013
All I have is God's word on how the earth began and I believe it. The truth will stand when the earth is on fire.
FREE SERVANT
#73114 Jan 30, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is impossible. For water to collect the Earth's solid surface would have to exist first so that the water would have somewhere to pool onto. Duh.
You still don't understand that the earth was purposefully assembled by the Creator and his word said water was involved in the very beginning.

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.

Louisiana Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News GOP aims to grow majority in final Senate race,... 1 hr Coconuts2803 4
Jimmy Swaggart Ministries Faces New Scandal (Aug '11) Dec 6 Joy Kail 551
News Louisiana shouldn't be known for locking people... Nov 28 EL1SE G1NGER1CH 1
News NASA study shows link between Deepwater Horizon... Nov 28 satmaster 1
News Inside Report for September 7, 2011 (Sep '11) Nov 26 Family 4ever 5
I will be committing suicide i.m going to end m... Nov 25 footprintofachris... 2
Horror hills Nov 23 Someone 1
More from around the web