Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223360 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.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#81995 Mar 20, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
My previous 30+ posts did not quote passages. Most of this fine group know's that. His words are His so when this comes down to what I beleive some day it will, the "no excuse" will be exactly that, not my words.
M
Ah, I see what you are saying.

You make veiled references to to the Bible but not actually stand by it. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

It'll be interesting to see if your little ploy outsmarts God.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#81996 Mar 20, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Is cellular science theory? You agree the computer screen you stare at has a maker but the eyes you use to see it doesn't? So how is that not the same as biotechnology? Biosensors use biomaterial connected to electric opamps to monitor for stuff like WMD material, is that not intel operating with and on bio-matter? Where do you differentiate, because it's bio matter evo made it by accident! That functionality didn't come about by someone wishing it into existence and waiting 20 mill years for evo to make it! How absurd! Does natural science be interpeted only through evo? My "Fundie Sect" didn't lie to me on that!
M
You employ several fallacies, those that have been repeated by many creatards who deny science so often they will earn you nothing but ridicule and eventually you will be treated like them. Word of advice, do some research first. I will point to the big one that is often mistaken for "logic."

Comparing biological processes to mechanical ones is an inherent failure, because the systems are very different. They are not different because of any "soul," but they are different because one is a result of forces, the other a result of chemical reactions, which differ on a molecular level. Accident is not applicable to either process, and one requires intelligent influence, the other we see occur on it's own all the time.
Mark

United States

#81997 Mar 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on your post here, you have not actually studied the evidence of evolution.
Evo's mechanism fails it, expecting random mutations to create things is anti-logic and not repeatable and impossible at the cell level, ever. Denton sealed this. They get a few random changes like friut fly alterations that include such great leaps such curved wings and eye color changes, but in thousands of gens of friut fly reproduction a fruit fly is still a fruit fly when they finish, and most all the mutations they force are bad and degenerative.

It must be in the cell mechanism to work, the code is read only but no one here wants to change their faith based on these facts. The code pattern is even trinary, no one want's to get into it because their commited to evo. beliefs. Talk about snake oil by-in. I have code writers working for me and we create some great stuff, world class stuff. but it doesnt come by chance.

True cell/gene operation and design is the issue, how variation works, thats not evo, it's designed in flexibility for adaptability with boundries. It's marketed as evolution but it's not. I know their arguments, they twist it to fit their belief's.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#81998 Mar 20, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Evo's mechanism fails it, expecting random mutations to create things is anti-logic and not repeatable and impossible at the cell level, ever. Denton sealed this. They get a few random changes like friut fly alterations that include such great leaps such curved wings and eye color changes, but in thousands of gens of friut fly reproduction a fruit fly is still a fruit fly when they finish, and most all the mutations they force are bad and degenerative.
It must be in the cell mechanism to work, the code is read only but no one here wants to change their faith based on these facts. The code pattern is even trinary, no one want's to get into it because their commited to evo. beliefs. Talk about snake oil by-in. I have code writers working for me and we create some great stuff, world class stuff. but it doesnt come by chance.
True cell/gene operation and design is the issue, how variation works, thats not evo, it's designed in flexibility for adaptability with boundries. It's marketed as evolution but it's not. I know their arguments, they twist it to fit their belief's.
We have repeated mutations, we know that the average number of mutations every human has from their parent DNA is 150 or more. We know this, we have seen this. So we know mutations happen, and that most are neutral.
Mark

United States

#81999 Mar 20, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, I see what you are saying.
You make veiled references to to the Bible but not actually stand by it. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
It'll be interesting to see if your little ploy outsmarts God.
I made one Scripture reference directly relating to the posters question of why people should believe that God exists, e.g. looking at the created world, as it says. Accuratly quoting a single verse will not get me in any trouble with Him, quite the contrary. People here get quite enough sermons it seems. If they ask me for something i will try to maintain that trust and not go overboard.

M
Mark

United States

#82000 Mar 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
We have repeated mutations, we know that the average number of mutations every human has from their parent DNA is 150 or more. We know this, we have seen this. So we know mutations happen, and that most are neutral.
Ayala reffered to this as geneitic load. The perplexing thing to him was he could only envision the human species to survive only 10K years max, due to it's negitive effects. Look into it. I have his book.

M

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#82001 Mar 20, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Ayala reffered to this as geneitic load. The perplexing thing to him was he could only envision the human species to survive only 10K years max, due to it's negitive effects. Look into it. I have his book.
M
Then he was not a very good scientist. The human species has many physical flaws, but we make them up with a few mental traits and behaviors that have secured our existence. The specific combination of social traits is unique to our species, and easily explained with the theory of evolution, though the individual traits are common in other animals so we aren't that unique. Our breeding capability, inherited by the chimp/ape lineage, is the reason we have benefited by the social traits so well. The one trait that is rare is our capability to alter our instinctual behaviors due to our intellectual advancement, it's why we have been capable of increasing our knowledge so much faster than any other species. This particular trait is so rare I cannot even recall the few other species that possess it.

Sagan said it best, "we can change ourselves." It's time we shed the childish things and embrace the beauty of reality. Pacifiers like religion are exactly the same as the tooth fairy.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#82002 Mar 20, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Evo's mechanism fails it, expecting random mutations to create things is anti-logic and not repeatable and impossible at the cell level, ever. Denton sealed this. They get a few random changes like friut fly alterations that include such great leaps such curved wings and eye color changes, but in thousands of gens of friut fly reproduction a fruit fly is still a fruit fly when they finish, and most all the mutations they force are bad and degenerative.
It must be in the cell mechanism to work, the code is read only but no one here wants to change their faith based on these facts. The code pattern is even trinary, no one want's to get into it because their commited to evo. beliefs. Talk about snake oil by-in. I have code writers working for me and we create some great stuff, world class stuff. but it doesnt come by chance.
True cell/gene operation and design is the issue, how variation works, thats not evo, it's designed in flexibility for adaptability with boundries. It's marketed as evolution but it's not. I know their arguments, they twist it to fit their belief's.
Gee!....you've obviously disproven evolution and all the sciences involved. Stand by for all the accolades and riches soon to be bestowed upon you.

Tell us where you got your evolution, genetics and other science degrees.

May we interview you for Scientific American?

I don't think I have ever seen such keen wit and stunning intellect on display before.

WOW....Just WOW

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#82003 Mar 20, 2013

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82004 Mar 20, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee!....you've obviously disproven evolution and all the sciences involved. Stand by for all the accolades and riches soon to be bestowed upon you.
Tell us where you got your evolution, genetics and other science degrees.
May we interview you for Scientific American?
I don't think I have ever seen such keen wit and stunning intellect on display before.
WOW....Just WOW
From here, the theory of Crevolution:

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#82005 Mar 21, 2013
There's no such thing as crevolution
AVG JOE

Memphis, TN

#82006 Mar 21, 2013
Bible Belt wrote:
When the universe began, it may have branched out upon waves, and seed propagation may have occurred as things moved toward the natural inclination of what was to be manifested. Cycling is responsible for propagation, and the interactions which occur are effects of patterned systems which work an action in course of execution.
Cycling?
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#82007 Mar 21, 2013
AVG JOE wrote:
<quoted text>Cycling?
Don't waste your time. I suspect that this is nothing more than chumming the waters to get liberals on their high horses.

...and they will get on their horses! What purpose would evolution serve if one could not go through their rhetorical spiel about(insert derogatory slur here) conservative scum who do not agree with a knight's politics of redistribution of wealth.(As if that is a logical conclusion!)

In the mean time, intelligent conservatives who claim to endorse the Bible, but actually endorse anything that shuts up the masses without costing them anything, go on doing what they will do. They certainly don't post here......or at least not as anything other than a stupid puppet to knock down with your magic "Knight in Shining Armor" wonder lance!(tm)**(Boioioioinggggg!! !)

**magic lance polishing cream sold separately.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#82008 Mar 21, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Found a pretty cool article on this subject -
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/0...
"In Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler, Professor Kershaw (who has no axe to grind on this topic, so far as I know) repeatedly attributes a belief or world view which he terms 'Social Darwinism' to the National Socialist leader".
"I believe that this ban (mention of which, I now gather, is a stock-in-trade Darwinist response to the allegation that the Nazis were influenced and inspired by evolutionary theory) was not caused by any NSDAP objection to the theory of evolution, but may have more to do with Hitler's specific disagreement with Haeckel's supporters and disciples, the Monists, who were very far from being Nazis.
So far as I know, the Monist League, which was made up of Haeckel's disciples, was shut down in 1933 by the Nazis, so publications linked with it would have been banned at the same time. Richard Weikart, in his book exploring the links between Darwinism and National Socialist ideology ('From Darwin to Hitler' p.70) notes:’The Nazi suppression of the Monist League was not a function of a fundamental change in the Monist League's orientation during the Weimar period, as [Daniel] Gasman has argued, but rather reflected significant differences between Haeckel and Hitler. Haeckel and the Monist League promoted many social reforms that were anathema to Hitler, such as homosexual rights, feminism, and pacifism.’
So he was at odd's with Haeckel(the promoter of the false concept of fish to human evolution occuring during pregnancy)Not Darwin.
Prof Kershaw may have no axe to grind on this topic but Mr Hitchens seems to: "(mention of which, I now gather, is a stock-in-trade Darwinist response to the allegation that the Nazis were influenced and inspired by evolutionary theory)".

Stock in trade?

In any event, after mentioning "primitive Darwinism" Hitchens rambles on about Haeckel but never, as far as I can tell, explains why "primitive Darwinism" was not directed at Darwin.

The referenced document is here:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burne...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#82009 Mar 21, 2013
Mark wrote:
We live in a post-flood world that was destroyed as a result of a society that had lost all morals and God reset the earth into it's final stage.
Mark wrote:
God is a good and just guy...
I find it impossible to reconcile those two statements.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#82010 Mar 21, 2013
Mark wrote:
FAA fouled up the nav equip.
How so?(Former career)
FREE SERVANT
#82011 Mar 21, 2013
AVG JOE wrote:
<quoted text>Cycling?
Ecclesiastes1: 5 through 10.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82012 Mar 21, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Is cellular science theory? You agree the computer screen you stare at has a maker but the eyes you use to see it doesn't? So how is that not the same as biotechnology? Biosensors use biomaterial connected to electric opamps to monitor for stuff like WMD material, is that not intel operating with and on bio-matter? Where do you differentiate, because it's bio matter evo made it by accident! That functionality didn't come about by someone wishing it into existence and waiting 20 mill years for evo to make it! How absurd! Does natural science be interpeted only through evo? My "Fundie Sect" didn't lie to me on that!
M
actually, it did. first, there is not one shred of aviednece of any creator, ever.

second, if you looked at the real world around you, or actually studied evolution as you lied about, you would see all froms of eyes, from simple light detection cells to them most complicated eyes around.(whicch are not on humans...why would your ffake god not give humans the besteyes he can make?)

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82013 Mar 21, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL... my children, employees and wife say the same so you will have to do better than that! God has me in the university of life every day and is just as frustrated, so no worries.
Seems most of the dialog on this site has to do with baiting and trapping then counter searching the web. I hear little about personal experiance, just personal bias. Prob with that tactic and me is I have actually done this stuff or worked with it, have faced off with some real big boy's and came out fine, so I just confidently type away.(Except I havn't been to the center of the Universe, obviously).
M
In fact, i do very little searching of the web to back up my claims.

i do not baiting and trapping, i just look at your statements and can easily see they are out and out lies or pure falsehoods.

you have not come out fine here, you have been proved to be blatent liar. it think the porblem may be you are just not smart enough to realize it...
Mark

Salem, OR

#82015 Mar 21, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
How so?(Former career)
Sisters VOR was being worked on and they squewed it 90 Deg. Took FL 66 straight into the MTn. 111 fatalities, I was in the jet behind them.

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 This is NOT OKAY | Austin Westdale Parke former... (Jul '08) 5 hr twinglezz 16
News Prisoner, 71, loses parole bid 54 years after h... Tue WelbyMD 2
News Pointe Coupee man knows history (Feb '09) Feb 6 tanyabaloney 26
How to survive in Louisiana Jan '18 White Trash 4
hey black folks (Nov '15) Jan '18 White Trash 6
Jimmy Swaggart Ministries Faces New Scandal (Aug '11) Dec '17 Mason Barker 619
#1 Bisexual Dating Site in US (Sep '13) Dec '17 himoto 26
More from around the web