Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221445 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.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#65316 Dec 14, 2012
lisawow wrote:
<quoted text>and what's wrong with accepting that a god doesn't exist, what difference should that make to someone like you who claims to be non-secular, why is that even a question in this day and age???There are evolutionary scientists of faith and those that are not, much like in life, most of the atheist agenda revolves about the freedom to Not worship, and not be dictatated too by those that do, isn't that a right that they deserve??
You deserve all the freedom you want for any reason you have. But it's going to cost ya! That's how our society works. both ways.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#65317 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
But these old mutations are scrambled and are not homologous with any retovirus evos can observe today. FACT.
Therefore anything you say can only be based on deduction that is the same as priori based speculation tied to TOE, and you have now admitted to that innocently. That is...Logical deductive reasoning.
THANK'S..FINALLY.....
Yes, they have evolved. That is what the TOE predicts. I will not put words into your worthless flapper. What does creatardism predict? Why are some ERV's revivible and others are not? The TOE has a clear cut answer, you don't.

And you do not know the difference between deduction and speculation either. That is of course to be expected of a creatard. Deduction is based upon facts, logic, and get this THEORIES. If it works, like the virus did, that is very strong evidence that the deduction was correct.

The fact that Phoenix worked, something no creatard has done, is extremely strong supporting evidence for the TOE.

And creationism still has nothing.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65318 Dec 14, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Have fun scrolling back through the pages and pages (and pages!!) of too, should you ever decide to grow up for a few minutes, and act like a rational, sane adult.
Assertions are not evidence, she was asking for evidence.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#65319 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen buddy, will you get over yourself? If I took off an ivented my own anything to show how that supports creation, I would never hear the end of it, and neither will you.
Phoenix is a fraud. It is a computer reconstructed demonstration.
You are just goosing off. These evos have exchanged HOX genes between species. Is that a new form of life? Silly!
Phoenix is made up according to how they think it should be and what they presume it should look like.
You cannot refute that. That is a fact.
What you can do is choose to believe that this is a recon that has merit in some way. That is a belief based on faith no different to mine.
What you can't do is say that, Phoenix is not a reconstruction according to a preceived priori.
The other thing you can't do is answer what old erv's are more mutated away from?... given they are meant to show similarity to an extinct retrovirus evos have never seen and can only possibly speculate on according to computer modelling and an existing priori. That is a fact. You can have faith, but faith is all your beliefs are based on.
Phoenix is real and thus not a fraud. The sequence of Phoenix was composed in silicio and holes in the sequence were filled with the most common nucleotide base observed at the specified location in 30 different sequences. That is sound logic based on observation and not circular logic as described by the prevaricator Maz. The use of computers to model the sequence is a sound practice that seems to send Maz into a repetitive rant using the one word with a mathematical basis, or variation that word, that she seems to know.

I had to pull the original paper and have read through it. Looks to me like they were able to make a functioning retrovirus from the sequence of the ancestoral viral sequence stabilized in the human genome. To the best of my knowledge they followed all the proper and necessary steps to characterize this virus and show that it is not only the same as the HERV-K virus, but it functions, is infective and acts in the manner that a retrovirus of this type would.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#65320 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. How many times do I have to explain to you because you don't seem to follow what I'm trying to say.
Math is a universal language. We invented language to interpret our reality - the earth, the sun, the solar system. Here's an example. If there was no formula for gravity, how else would we explain its existence? Poetry?(Even that has math)
But again, you see what you want to see, you hear what you want to hear. Sounds like music to my ears!
If he is saying the same thing you are, then he seeing and hearing the same thing more or less that you are.

You could use poetry to describe gravity. In any spoken or written language of your choice. Mathematics is a language of greater consistency, universality, utility and efficiency in describing much of the natural world than spoken or written languages.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#65321 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't seen one here who's a theist evolutionist.
Even if I didn't follow Christian beliefs, I won't be too adamant to say that God does not exist as what most hostile evos here do.
I disagree, but I have been here for a while and maybe I am more open minded. Although, I think theism as I understand it, would be difficult to practice along with science. Which may be our problem here all in all.

The hostility as I have seen it is usually against ignorance. It is unfortunate that fundamentalist beliefs and ignorance are often (always?) correlated.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#65322 Dec 14, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Phoenix is real and thus not a fraud. The sequence of Phoenix was composed in silicio and holes in the sequence were filled with the most common nucleotide base observed at the specified location in 30 different sequences. That is sound logic based on observation and not circular logic as described by the prevaricator Maz. The use of computers to model the sequence is a sound practice that seems to send Maz into a repetitive rant using the one word with a mathematical basis, or variation that word, that she seems to know.
I had to pull the original paper and have read through it. Looks to me like they were able to make a functioning retrovirus from the sequence of the ancestoral viral sequence stabilized in the human genome. To the best of my knowledge they followed all the proper and necessary steps to characterize this virus and show that it is not only the same as the HERV-K virus, but it functions, is infective and acts in the manner that a retrovirus of this type would.
I agree totally. Everything in that experiment was done assuming, surprise surprise, that the Theory Of Evolution works. It was not blind speculation or whatever other insulting terms that Maz wants to use. It was scientific deduction pure and simple.

She also admits that ancestral ERV's are "scrambled". What does the TOE predict? That the longer a section of DNA, like an ERV, is in the genome the more it will have mutated and evolved. Is it any surprise that old ERV's are scrambled and are recognizable only by their shape eventually? That is exactly what the TOE would predict and since creation was supposed to be all but simultaneous not what Creationism would predict at all. Old ERV's are recognizable as old ERV's using the TOE, they are not so using creationism.

Thank you Maz for illustrating so strongly that you are once again wrong.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#65323 Dec 14, 2012
lisawow wrote:
<quoted text>and what's wrong with accepting that a god doesn't exist, what difference should that make to someone like you who claims to be non-secular, why is that even a question in this day and age???There are evolutionary scientists of faith and those that are not, much like in life, most of the atheist agenda revolves about the freedom to Not worship, and not be dictatated too by those that do, isn't that a right that they deserve??
I have noticed that more of the atheists and agnostics (as claimed on here) that I have met on here have been more intelligent, logical, openminded and friendly than the claimed Christians. I say Christians specifically, since that seems to be the most commonly espoused religious view on here. If these Christians were as at ease and and confident as the atheist and agnostics, then they might not be so frightened for their beliefs.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#65324 Dec 14, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree totally. Everything in that experiment was done assuming, surprise surprise, that the Theory Of Evolution works. It was not blind speculation or whatever other insulting terms that Maz wants to use. It was scientific deduction pure and simple.
She also admits that ancestral ERV's are "scrambled". What does the TOE predict? That the longer a section of DNA, like an ERV, is in the genome the more it will have mutated and evolved. Is it any surprise that old ERV's are scrambled and are recognizable only by their shape eventually? That is exactly what the TOE would predict and since creation was supposed to be all but simultaneous not what Creationism would predict at all. Old ERV's are recognizable as old ERV's using the TOE, they are not so using creationism.
Thank you Maz for illustrating so strongly that you are once again wrong.
Yes, that seems to be the case they are illustrating with this very experiment. It took me a bit to come around to that point, but you have it down.

I think I would drop over with heart attack if Maz actually provided a reference that supported her point. It is like she is the Bizzaro reviewer of scientific literature and comes to the complete opposite conclusions to what is stated.

“too hard to handle”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#65325 Dec 14, 2012
Good wishes, mery christmas happy holidays and good fortune in the new year to everyone here.

“Eleanor, Where is your heart?!”

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#65326 Dec 14, 2012

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#65327 Dec 14, 2012
I fish wrote:
<quoted text>
So there was never logic involved with with the universe and solar system? There was no thinking or life. Seasons and time and amounts weren't there to observe? People(believers) always associate the gospel with math when they say One sacrifice paid for Everyone's debt to prove that miracles happen that don't appear mathmatically achieveable without supernatural power.
This is all belief Rose Tyler. There is no evidence to substatiate it. The seasons occur whether we watch or not. We just call them seasons and give each a name. Just like how we name the days of the week after different gods. It doesn't change the day, it just gives us an anchor to work from. No one is saying that historical peoples didn't use math, but if you don't have a concept of numbers, and some peoples still exist this way, you aren't likely to have math. Either way, human mathematics are not a prerequisite for life. You may review your history and see how modern mathematics has been developed over the centuries. It isn't the same as it used to be.

“Eleanor, Where is your heart?!”

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#65328 Dec 14, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>This is all belief Rose Tyler. There is no evidence to substatiate it. The seasons occur whether we watch or not. We just call them seasons and give each a name. Just like how we name the days of the week after different gods. It doesn't change the day, it just gives us an anchor to work from. No one is saying that historical peoples didn't use math, but if you don't have a concept of numbers, and some peoples still exist this way, you aren't likely to have math. Either way, human mathematics are not a prerequisite for life. You may review your history and see how modern mathematics has been developed over the centuries. It isn't the same as it used to be.
You are helping to point out how perfect things are when humans have nothing to do with them. Seasons are great. The issue is whether they evolved or were designed by God. why doesn't it take forty years for corn to grow? How long have birds beeen flying south for the winter? Why isn't the sun closer to the earth? Why do people sleep in the dark? Do humans really need rest...or was it invented?

“too hard to handle”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#65329 Dec 14, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>This is all belief Rose Tyler. There is no evidence to substatiate it. The seasons occur whether we watch or not. We just call them seasons and give each a name. Just like how we name the days of the week after different gods. It doesn't change the day, it just gives us an anchor to work from. No one is saying that historical peoples didn't use math, but if you don't have a concept of numbers, and some peoples still exist this way, you aren't likely to have math. Either way, human mathematics are not a prerequisite for life. You may review your history and see how modern mathematics has been developed over the centuries. It isn't the same as it used to be.
Agreed.

Sometimes I think the ancients had a better grasp of math than we do.

How do you think the architects of all those magnificent buildings got them built?

With all our "technology" I think we are actually losing the ability to think creatively and intelligently.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#65330 Dec 14, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
No, Maz, you are a fraud.
You have not shown one thing wrong with their method of assembling Phoenix. They did not take genes willy nilly from anywhere. The genes they took came from the HERV's. Their location in Phoenix was the same as they were in the original HERV's. They merely selected the most common gene present. Since many of the genes HAD evolved, not all please note, the common genes were the most likely ones not to have mutated.
What part of that don't you understand?
The built Phoenix only with genes from the HERV's in the order they were found from the HERV's. There was no prejudice to put in special "working" genes since in the body of the HERV they really could not tell if they would be working or not.
Flying Spaghetti Monster you are dense.
The term is reconstructed, not resurrected.

They would not have to reconstruct Phoenix from anything if a HERV could be lifted from a human genome alive and infectious.

Regardless, HERV-K is a 'recent' so called ERV, that has already aquired function in under 6my. You are focussing on this to detract from the substance of my point.

The point being.....That any deduction or speculation an evolutionist makes on 'ancient' ervs, as they relate to common ancestry, is based on mutations away from an extinct retrovirus that evos have never observed, the existence and construction of which evos can only speculate about.

So you have already given me what I wanted, which is that all this hype about ervs is based on priori deductions and speculations of extinct retrovirus evos have never observed.

Thanks Subby!

Hence, data re junk dna is supporting creationist predictions and falsifying evos initial claims; ervs are proving to be functional as part of the evo junk dna myth; ervs are an example of falacious speculative claims made by evos that are based purely on speculation no more robust than anything I can come with.

Next......How about my point 2.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#65331 Dec 14, 2012
I fish wrote:
<quoted text>
You are helping to point out how perfect things are when humans have nothing to do with them. Seasons are great. The issue is whether they evolved or were designed by God. why doesn't it take forty years for corn to grow? How long have birds beeen flying south for the winter? Why isn't the sun closer to the earth? Why do people sleep in the dark? Do humans really need rest...or was it invented?
Does my mirror image date? What kind of a job does my shadow have?

Nothing I said indicates that things are perfect without humans. What I said is that humans are not required gravity to work, life to evolve or stars to form. Seasons are great. The point is that we can show through experiment and observation that evolution has occurred and is occurring. You cannot do that for God.

I would say that birds have been flying since they developed wings and powered flight. Corn grows for the period which it grows because of its genetics and selective breeding by humans. But just because humans have bred plants and animals, created clocks and mountanous sculptures and developed language and writing, it does not logically follow that there must be a creator/designer. There may well be and I believe that there is, but I can't design an experiment to show that. I can hypothesize that there are selective pressures that led to the development of sleeping when it is dark. These pressures may be very old and predate our oldest sapient ancestory. You are aware that many animals and plants become quiescent at night. Others have taken this opportunity as an opening for their own benefit. Insects, bats, many predators to name a few. It is harder to work at night, the temperatures are often cooler. We need to rest sometime. Why not then. I would say that based on the studies I am aware of, humans need rest. Many animals do.

You take care Rose Tyler.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#65332 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The term is reconstructed, not resurrected.
They would not have to reconstruct Phoenix from anything if a HERV could be lifted from a human genome alive and infectious.
Regardless, HERV-K is a 'recent' so called ERV, that has already aquired function in under 6my. You are focussing on this to detract from the substance of my point.
The point being.....That any deduction or speculation an evolutionist makes on 'ancient' ervs, as they relate to common ancestry, is based on mutations away from an extinct retrovirus that evos have never observed, the existence and construction of which evos can only speculate about.
So you have already given me what I wanted, which is that all this hype about ervs is based on priori deductions and speculations of extinct retrovirus evos have never observed.
Thanks Subby!
Hence, data re junk dna is supporting creationist predictions and falsifying evos initial claims; ervs are proving to be functional as part of the evo junk dna myth; ervs are an example of falacious speculative claims made by evos that are based purely on speculation no more robust than anything I can come with.
Next......How about my point 2.
Besides your gross ability to misunderstand, what creation predictions are you claiming are supported by this research?

“Eleanor, Where is your heart?!”

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#65333 Dec 14, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Does my mirror image date? What kind of a job does my shadow have?
Nothing I said indicates that things are perfect without humans. What I said is that humans are not required gravity to work, life to evolve or stars to form. Seasons are great. The point is that we can show through experiment and observation that evolution has occurred and is occurring. You cannot do that for God.
I would say that birds have been flying since they developed wings and powered flight. Corn grows for the period which it grows because of its genetics and selective breeding by humans. But just because humans have bred plants and animals, created clocks and mountanous sculptures and developed language and writing, it does not logically follow that there must be a creator/designer. There may well be and I believe that there is, but I can't design an experiment to show that. I can hypothesize that there are selective pressures that led to the development of sleeping when it is dark. These pressures may be very old and predate our oldest sapient ancestory. You are aware that many animals and plants become quiescent at night. Others have taken this opportunity as an opening for their own benefit. Insects, bats, many predators to name a few. It is harder to work at night, the temperatures are often cooler. We need to rest sometime. Why not then. I would say that based on the studies I am aware of, humans need rest. Many animals do.
You take care Rose Tyler.
Genetics...can't be God. They were created by God. wrong answer. The enemy doesn't have the power to create ...he can only use what already exists to deceive people. C.S. Lewis said that.(sort of)
you take care too.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65334 Dec 14, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
We have just provided you with a summary of four Darwin Busters. Each one busts and invalidates "ape to human evolution."
No, they don't, since you were unable to respond to the questions I asked.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65335 Dec 14, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)
The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution."
Nonetheless, they found that:
•The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.
•The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.
Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.
On the contrary, the paper in Nature identified the genetic mechanisms that would account for the differences.

And of course, the same paper points out that the *remainder* of the human and chimp genomes differs less than 1%.

Funny how your website omitted those two facts.

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 James Comey fired as FBI director 1 min Go Trump 2,622
News Trump claims witch hunt, says he's most hounded... 2 min Ronald 327
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min My New Alias RULES 1,535,449
News Gray Matters: Be healthy, avoid geezer jokes (Feb '09) 3 min Ulysses G 85
News White House rebuts Washington Post report of Tr... 3 min CodeTalker 813
News Fact check: Medicaid a target for cuts despite ... 4 min BHM5267 45
News Democratic congressman has heart valve replacem... 6 min CodeTalker 2
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 50 min Cheech the Conser... 240,911
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr AMERICAN SUNSHINE 269,986
More from around the web