Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222780 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

Macclesfield, UK

#65205 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
In that case, nothing exists by random chance. Nothing is random, not even the stock market.
OF COURSE! Cuz all evolution really is is just RANDOM CHANCE and nothing else!!!

Except that it isn't.

:-/

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#65206 Dec 14, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the only thing worse is a stinking, ignorantpsychoTic type hypocrite-full of nothing but their only maniacal freakishness, that trolls around on random virtual message boards, doing nohting but calling dead people, their interviewers and others, "liars".
Might be a clue there for ya--something else fer you to keep busy at in researching-- for some of your seemingly favored "vent n hate" on others stuh-aisle.(twelve year old-phat crayons on sale now-whilsyt supplies last)
Have a nice day all the same!
All I asked was for you to prove what you claimed, simple enough request that you have not managed, end of story. If you are not man enough to admit it then fine, it’s your life.

And if this means you go into gibbering mode when you are caught out, then that’s fine too, you gibber to your hearts content. It makes no difference to the facts that Einstein believed the concept of god was childish

I have offered my proof, you haven’t. I have not lied for my god, you have, sleep well with that knowledge
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65207 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually have read books on evolution. It had more info than wikipedia. LOL.
Creationist books don't count. Just because they said the word "evolution" a lot doesn't mean they're talking about evolution.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#65208 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Additional reply to Subby..
Listen, here stop misquoting me. I have not said anything about comparisons other than evos ignorantly look to similarity and ignore differences.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/18...
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/fra...
I said ervs will prove to be FUNCTIONAL and that is the way it is going as opposed to evos that initially claimed they were functionless remnants.
Will you answer my question as to how you know what is a 'new' erv that has recently inserted in mankind after the split or 'old' meaning ancestral? Do you know or do you just believe these jokers for the heck of it?
These 'old' ervs are scrambled. In fact they bear no homologue in any known retrovirus here today. All the gobble is based on what is speculated. It is algorithmic straw grabbing. It is all gibberish. Do you get that?
The 'new/recent' ervs actually have some similarity to current retrovirus in that there are tiny remnants of sequence that APPEAR to look a little like these retrovirus. They are 'distantly related' meaning the tiny left over remnant they found are NOT the 'same' as any current retrovirus. So here again is an extrapolation based on an existing priori of common decent.
Still saying a lot while saying nothing at all. Now you have apparently certified yourself to be qualified to review scientific research without benefit of actually understanding what that research says. Well done.

Oh, I forget you use references. That means everything you say is true. You can declare victory and move on.

“happy to be horny”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#65209 Dec 14, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
Darwin Buster Three: The laws of genetics prevent "ape to human evolution" from ever taking place. One reason is there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes. But "ape to human evolution" relies on apes and humans having the ability to create new genes with new functions. New genes are required in order to have morphological changes, such as gills into lungs or more efficient brains. So called "gene duplication" is not evidence that organisms can create new genes. Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake through "gene duplication," this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.
http://darwinconspiracy.com/
I'd be interested in hearing these "experts" explain the science behind turning people into pillars of salt, virgin births and thousand year old men ect. ect.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65210 Dec 14, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
Darwin Buster One: Darwinians have been dead wrong whenever they have claimed that the "genetic matter of ape and humans is 98% identical." The ape and human chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for "ape to human evolution" theory to adequately explain. For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.
If that's the case then which other non-human species on Earth has the most similar genome to that of humans?

Lemme guess is the answer perchance...

CHIMPS?!?!?!??!?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65211 Dec 14, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Interested? Not so much. It's just that Charles have been ranting on for a year or two about how the English *own* the English language. I guess he thinks the rest of us have to pay licensing fees.
And I still haven't received my cheque from Chuck.

(shrug)

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#65212 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Trying to turn the complexity of the genome into numbers is very much like singing in the breeze. I agree.
It is also like making music that soothes ones ears based on the tune one likes to hear.
Are we turning this thread into "who can post similes that make no sense." You win!

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#65213 Dec 14, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Their appearance is often exaggerated in nature by cranks. Especially the golden ratio.
So uh, you said you were educated in science then? I mean you don't believe in biology (or in fact any science at all as we quickly found out), you see golden ratios where there are none, you think Perry Marshall understands science...
Are you that dense? If I don't accept science, I wouldn't have studied pharmacology in the first place. Have you been taking narcotics?

What your problem is, you just want to repeat what atheist evilutionists choirs are saying and don't want to accept other facts that is shown to you.

“Shoot First, Think Never”

Since: Jun 09

Elk Grove

#65214 Dec 14, 2012
Darwin Buster Four: Darwinians have no explanation for why humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes. Darwinians claim that "chromosome fusion" of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs. But there is not one example of "chromosome fusion" in mammals. Darwinians claim that 1 in 1000 human babies have a "fused chromosome" but this is an out and out lie. They are actually referring to Robertsonian Translocations, which are "translocations" and not fused chromosomes and does not result in a change in the chromosome number. Besides, scientifically derived facts refute "chromosome fusion" can occur in apes or humans.

http://darwinconspiracy.com/

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#65215 Dec 14, 2012
lisawow wrote:
<quoted text>I'd be interested in hearing these "experts" explain the science behind turning people into pillars of salt, virgin births and thousand year old men ect. ect.
what kind of English don't you understand?

met·a·phor
[ métt&#601; fàwr ]

implicit comparison: the use to describe somebody or something of a word or phrase that is not meant literally but by means of a vivid comparison expresses something about him, her, or it, e.g. saying that somebody is a snake
figurative language: all language that involves figures of speech or symbolism and does not literally represent real things
symbol: one thing used or considered to represent another

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#65216 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What is it with you Subby? I have already said that Phoenix was a major con job. To add to their fraud they took an erv that is 'new' and only found in humans. Here look below!
"Researchers could not isolate a functioning, infectious HERV-K virus from human samples to study its possible function, though.
Thierry Heidmann at France's Institute Gustave-Roussy in Villejuif and his colleagues made an end run around this obstacle by comparing 30 different HERV-K sequences. For each position in their final sequence they assigned the nucleotide base that was most common among the 30 originals at that position, according to a paper published online October 31 in Genome Research. They called the final virus product "Phoenix."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
This is the kind of fraudulent misrepresentation creationists have come to expect from evolutionists. They did nor resurrect anything. What they did was build a virus themselves from sequences based on what they thought it should look like, and then used this circular reasoning as evidence for resurrection and infective capacity of a Human ERV that is 'recent'.
What is more likely is that reverse transcribe has no way of incorporating an entire genomic sequence across the germ line, let alone into population fixation, without fatality.
What is more likely is that these sequence were present in the initially created Adam and Eve as some immunity of other function. This resulted in the formation of retrovirus and a drop in mankinds inability to defer old age and disease as per the fall.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15237223
Although this genetic material, you call ervs, remains functional they do not impart the same protection and longevity that they once did.
If evolutionary researchers started to conduct their research based on more accurate assumptions they would do heaps better and they might actually find cures and genetic therapies that work.
Let's keep this short and sweet Maz. How were the steps taken to resurrect Phoenix in any way?

First, of course they used a new or recent ERV. Don't you understand that the longer an ERV is in a genome the more it will have evolved? That is one of the ways to judge how old an ERV is. something that you claimed was impossible. Old ancestral ERV's would not be revivible. They revived it using the TOE, or is that cheating.

From my viewpoint it is a lose lose for you and yours. Either they made life in the lab or they revived a virus. You can't have it both ways unless you are a hypocr... Oh, never mind. I now see why you think you can have it both ways.

“Eleanor, Where is your heart?!”

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#65217 Dec 14, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Whereas Rowling is obsessed with class and education, Tolkien has more of a Karma approach to who fulfills what roles in his story. Granted, there is a royalty aspect in Tolkien that Rowling does not include, but that is just another part of the absolutely stereotypical male and female roles of leadership that separate matriarchies and patriarchies.
Generally, I think he just accepts the natural roles that go along with sexual dimorphism.
Just my opinion.
The point is many people read fiction without being influenced by the 'hidden agenda' as it were...and are simply entertained. Many people are inspired by the escape from slavery type of stories even in a prejudiced world. Ms. Stowe knew that. Some entertainment does not seem edifying. Have you heard so many people explain how wrong violent games and movies are because that's where violence on the streets is birthed practically...but you might argue that just as violent movies make people violent...romantic movies make people romantic...and all entertainment should cease because we need to create a world without feeling so no one hates or loves to dangerous levels.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65218 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree with you. DNA itself is mathematical.
What kind of music exists without mathematics? Music has beat, tempo, rhythm, etc. Sound is like a number. You put those numbers together you have math. 1 + 2 = 3. Thus, you have music.
Actually this is completely and utterly and totally wrongily wrong wrongness.

To have music one must have vibrations transmitted through a medium, usually in our case that would be our atmosphere. Sound is not a number because numbers are arbitrary.

Now, music CAN be measured by math. But it is not required. In fact there are quite likely a lot of great musicians who TOTALLY SUCK at math.

Math is a language. It is an abstract concept. It is not a real physical thing, except for the brain states that exist within our head. Like English does not refer to a real thing, as it is also an abstract form of communication. Without math, DNA would still exist. Rocks still existed before we had words to describe them.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#65219 Dec 14, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
OF COURSE! Cuz all evolution really is is just RANDOM CHANCE and nothing else!!!
Except that it isn't.
:-/
Oh it's not, so what is it about if not about random mutations?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65220 Dec 14, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm. The hills are alive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =wbQSAdU4Qb4XX
Oh look. Spider-Man!

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#65221 Dec 14, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Without math, DNA would still exist. Rocks still existed before we had words to describe them.
Now you are just downright lying! You can't be any more wrong!
ItsObvious

Moline, IL

#65222 Dec 14, 2012
Prove this wrong. An advanced species known as humans developed technology to leave their own planet and go to life sustaining planets in other solar systems. They went to planets most like their own and to their surprise, found primitive ape like creatures on that planet. They decided to use these apes to help retrieve resources from this planet for their own agenda, as well as wage war against other human colonies settling on the same planet(explaining gods with fire breathing birds, powers capable of mass destruction, wars between "angels" in theology). Using technology much like invitro fertilization, they combined their own DNA with these apes to give them enough intelligence to take orders and help but not enough to fully comprehend existence. Through genetic cloning(genetic cloning explaining why humans have over 4000 genetic disorders while all other animals on earth have less than 500, except dolly the cloned sheep who was predisposed to an abnormally high number of genetic disorders), more and more of these slaves were created but they unexpectedly "evolved and suddenly had more awareness. Undoubtedly better hybrids could be produced by further hybridizing with this higher ape species(explaining the suddenly rapid development in human evolution towards the modern age I.e. the jump from Neanderthal cave dwellers inexplicably forming mass societies, building pyramids across the globe etc.) producing even higher intelligent humanoids. Then these humans left the planets after losing the wars or getting all they needed from the planet, promising their creations a return, possibly to check up on their progress and see how their "experiment" has gone. Besides how hard it is to accept this theory and however implausible this is, what if it happened here on earth already? Barring how absolutely absurd it sounds, the only way to disprove this type of theory would be for extraterrestrials to come down and literally say we had no part in it. Just for the crazy factor I'm gonna throw in the possibility that the first ape hybrids resembled something of a Sasquatch or a yeti and when new hybrids were made, these obsoletes were set free or banished explaining the possible(however unlikely) existence of yetis and sasquatches that are reported being seen. They hide from us because we so closely resemble the original "alien ancestors" that first enslaved them and waged war with them. Trust me it sounds crazy to me too but it explains any(if any exists) arguments against the speed and practicality of a human brain developing as it did(making birth extremely dangerous and a lot harder anatomically, not to mention the absolute lack of necessity of so much brain capacity for such primitive humanoids. Before you dismiss this remember that Darwinism states that a species will only evolve or adapt to the extent in which is necessary to survive. Our ancestors seem to make an unnecessary jump to a huge brain capacity at a large risk to the birthing process due to the size of the infants head) and also explains all of these religious stories or more accurately, flawed resellings of people who saw what they could not explain. Also if this is just too out there for people on this forum I can discuss how the same brain in primitive humanoids that we have today still could have evolved in the short time period to modern man and how we are still evolving. Sorry for the novel lol ;)

“happy to be horny”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#65223 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you that dense? If I don't accept science, I wouldn't have studied pharmacology in the first place. Have you been taking narcotics?
What your problem is, you just want to repeat what atheist evilutionists choirs are saying and don't want to accept other facts that is shown to you.
So it's not about science then, it's just about you wanting to to hang on to your big, fluffy, christian security blanket??

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#65224 Dec 14, 2012
Today, there are numerous hypotheses about how, why, when, and where language might first have emerged.[2] It might seem that there is hardly more agreement today than there was a hundred years ago, when Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provoked a rash of armchair speculations on the topic.

Since the early 1990s, however, a growing number of professional linguists, archaeologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and others have attempted to address with new methods what they are beginning to consider "the hardest problem in science".

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

And Dude, you think you have the answers? LOL!

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) 2 min old_moose 141
News Trump, the 'America First' president, goes to t... 2 min CodeTalker 478
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Joy 1,603,417
News GOP health bill all but dead; McCain again deal... 3 min Sheriff Joe 529 100
News The news media love America. The government, no... 5 min FormerParatrooper 65
News Trump endorses boycott of NFL 5 min Red Crosse 80
News Politics Roundup: Trump's Call To Fire NFL Play... 6 min Retribution 40
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 20 min Limbertwig 289,312
News Congressman to flood victims: 'God is telling y... 39 min See The Light 25
More from around the web