Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 195351 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.

susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#106891 Nov 24, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>I do not recall anywhere in the Bible where God is light and energy. He usually seems to be depicted as a bearded dude riding a cloud. Of course he did a[[ear to Moses as a flaming bush. lots of times he was just a voice nobody else could hear, hummmmmm. I am glad you are amongst huge portion of the population who believe they can tell us they know what God is. My only problem is there is so many of you I can not figure out which you of you is right. However your contention that God is energy and light at least steps you away from the age old notion of God that man created in his own image. Just do me a favor and don't go looking for any space ships behind the comet.
Light is Energy, the purest form of Energy. Christians depict Santa Claus the same way they depict God. Long grey hair and beard. Santa (Satan) is the god of Christianity. The God of Israel is a woman. That is both the secret and the surprise.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106892 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you may like to rest assured nor is your KFC a theropod.
"The team discovered dozens of three-toed footprints in rocks older than 212 million years in northwest Argentina. Averaging about 3.5 centimeters wide and similar in length, they look very much like bird footprints made in small shallow ponds along a river. However, the rocks are some 55 million years older than the most ancient known bird skeleton, Archaeopteryx. The big question is what made them."
"Nonetheless, Melchor cautiously avoids saying birds made the prints. "These bird-like footprints can only be attributed to an unknown group of theropods showing some avian characteristics," he writes in the journal Nature."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2466-an...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...
Hey? How about that for handwaving? Despite not one single theropod fossil ever being found with a reversed hallux some unknow group of theropods has been invented to support the myth.
Great science, you have faith in there!
No handwaving. An open admission that without fossil skeletons they don't have anywhere near enough to call these bird footprints.

Why do evolutionists have to provide evidence and all you have to supply is supposition at best?

Take a chill pill. Slow down, make sure that your links work, And maybe then we can have a conversation.

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#106893 Nov 24, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>It has more to do with odds than luck. It doesn't matter how long the odds are, if you spin the wheel enough you will eventually hit. In 6 billion years you can give the wheel a lot of spins. What do you put the odds at Jimmy the Geek?(I'm using the age old definition of Geek, the circus definition, like what you find in Gibsonton fl. Not the very recent one that is comparable to nerds.)
Hey! another proponent of the astronomical luck theory! Anything can happen if you have enough time! the real God of the evo puddle people.

A lifeless puddle can spring to life and grow to be a man!

all you need is time! ha,ha,ha.....science! ha,ha.ha.

“No such thing as ABIODARWINISM”

Since: Jan 11

No ABIODARWINISTS either!

#106894 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a YEC and am happy for dinos and birds to be flapping about together without man. I respect YECS and hey have some interesting points. If they make their case for young earth, all the better.
The point is dinos never adapted/evolved into birds. Avian footprints demonstrating a reversed hallux, have been dated to 212mya, predate their previous ancestors and have necessitated the invention of a mythical theropod with modern avian feet to explain them. Would you like to see the link?
This data, of course, puts modern birds more than half way back to the Devonian, where they belong. Given birds have hollow bones we are lucky to even have this data.
How about you? Do you have faith in the dino to bird thing, regardless of all evidence I can present against it?
There's that old grossly misleading review of evidence that doesn't say what you just said. This one has been explained to you so often, it is sad to see you bring it up again.

The fossils footprints are bird-like prints of a therapod. You have never shown evidence that they are otherwise.

“No such thing as ABIODARWINISM”

Since: Jan 11

No ABIODARWINISTS either!

#106895 Nov 24, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey! another proponent of the astronomical luck theory! Anything can happen if you have enough time! the real God of the evo puddle people.
A lifeless puddle can spring to life and grow to be a man!
all you need is time! ha,ha,ha.....science! ha,ha.ha.
Why not. A lifeless turd sprang to life and became bohart.

“No such thing as ABIODARWINISM”

Since: Jan 11

No ABIODARWINISTS either!

#106896 Nov 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No handwaving. An open admission that without fossil skeletons they don't have anywhere near enough to call these bird footprints.
Why do evolutionists have to provide evidence and all you have to supply is supposition at best?
Take a chill pill. Slow down, make sure that your links work, And maybe then we can have a conversation.
Supposition? You are being far too polite. I would call it lies. Of course you did say "at best". When MAZ does provide links to a reference, she ferments the information they contain in the bowels of her mind before dumping the excrement here over and over and over.

I think her hand waving is just a request for more toilet paper.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#106897 Nov 25, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>I agree that English roots came from a combination of the Germanic Anglo's and Saxons. However their languages were slightly different and were combined with the Celtic languages being spoken in Brittan when they arrived. Although the Normans were also descended from Germanic tribes their language was predominately influenced by Latin that had been combined with their original Germanic language. The Normans had the largest influence on the modern English language. Hence joke about English being French's largest sub language. It was not until all of these languages where combined in more and lesser degree's did the language of English form in England. The Celts spoke Celtic Anglo's spoke Anglo. The Saxons spoke Saxon and the Normans spoke Norman. None of them spoke English because English did not exist until a cocktail of all of those language evolved. Of course the only reason the Irish started speaking English is because of their love of cocktails. It is hard to pin point when English became a language of its own but it was well after the Norman invasion. Since that cocktail was mixed in England I must insist that English was created in England and because of that it is called English.
OK, well put, I was only differentiating the Origin from the Formation, but you pose some good points. And Lol at the Irish jab...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106898 Nov 25, 2013
Extreme Ways wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure that is a great link. It assigns no scientific classification and does not say it is a transitional fossil. Which both are what I have said all along. Thanks for the support.
No big deal, all fossils are transitional.(shrug)

It's the uh, OBVIOUS consequence of evolution.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106899 Nov 25, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean those idiots that reckon dead elements can organize themselves into complex factories of reproduction all by themselves and a little lucky zap? There are plenty of them around here. Take your pick!
Yeah, they're called creationists.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106900 Nov 25, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Child!
Yikes. You come here lying for Jesus every day by telling us reality ain't real cuz Jews are magic.

If you fundies were to total up the amount of irony meters you've totalled it would dwarf the US military budget.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106901 Nov 25, 2013
MazHere wrote:
No problem. Each and every one of them.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106902 Nov 25, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you may like to rest assured nor is your KFC a theropod.
"The team discovered dozens of three-toed footprints in rocks older than 212 million years in northwest Argentina. Averaging about 3.5 centimeters wide and similar in length, they look very much like bird footprints made in small shallow ponds along a river. However, the rocks are some 55 million years older than the most ancient known bird skeleton, Archaeopteryx. The big question is what made them."
"Nonetheless, Melchor cautiously avoids saying birds made the prints. "These bird-like footprints can only be attributed to an unknown group of theropods showing some avian characteristics," he writes in the journal Nature."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2466-an...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...
Hey? How about that for handwaving? Despite not one single theropod fossil ever being found with a reversed hallux some unknow group of theropods has been invented to support the myth.
Great science, you have faith in there!
Oh, so it's all a great big conspiracy? No wonder evidence doesn't mean anything to ya.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106903 Nov 25, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey! another proponent of the astronomical luck theory! Anything can happen if you have enough time! the real God of the evo puddle people.
A lifeless puddle can spring to life and grow to be a man!
all you need is time! ha,ha,ha.....science! ha,ha.ha.
Oh hi Bo. I see you're still trotting out the same old lie that the theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis.

Remember, since your answer to quite literally everything and anything is Godmagic you have zero to criticize anything with.

All we need to do is point out that life is here. That's all we need. Since life is here, evolution remains unaffected. This is why we remain unrefuted.

Is it even scientifically POSSIBLE for you to post without being a hypocrite lest the Earth be swallowed up by a black hole?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106904 Nov 25, 2013
Ghost and Darkness wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you believe and why do you believe it? Give me understanding of yourself.
Maz sez reality ain't real cuz Goddidit with magic cuz the Bible iz troo cuz teh Bible sez so.

This makes him a massive liar for Jesus. There really isn't anything else to it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106905 Nov 25, 2013
MazHere wrote:
I believe the
Your beliefs are irrelevant.

They are simply NOT important.

Never have been.

Ever.

Not once.

Not even a ickle tiny widdle bit.

Sorry.
MazHere wrote:
I believe that atheists can be saved and that judgement is somehow tied to conscience and being of good heart, and not law.
In that case you're screwed since you're an ahole.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
God of creation has the power to create and turn energy into matter instantly if He so chooses to do so and that is more plausible than deal elements doing it for themselves.
Despite this, elements doing it for themselves is ALL that's observed.

Not one single observable phenomena provides evidence that Jews are magic.
MazHere wrote:
HOWEVER...What I believe is irrelevant because it is the data that counts
Now THIS is probably the first and only time you have been, and ever will be right. Because this:
MazHere wrote:
and as biased as it is, still is supportive of a creo paradigm along with mankind and the earth being a special creation.
Is what everyone on this entire thread knows to be a massive lie.

Okay, perhaps Chuckles doesn't know, but he's on another planet.
MazHere wrote:
Which theory of evolution do you believe in mostly? RNA world vs DNA world first? Natural selection vs a virus and HGT actually being your creator? Genetic distances vs comparative genomics?
Note how your usage of big words betrays your misunderstandings, although you *are* at least smart enough to know how to deliberately misuse terminology for the intent of deception.

Problem is it's only Chuckles, and perhaps Bo who you sound convincing to.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106906 Nov 25, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, well put, I was only differentiating the Origin from the Formation, but you pose some good points. And Lol at the Irish jab...
I have a bit of the Irish in me, myself. That is where my twisted sense of humor comes from.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106907 Nov 25, 2013
MazHere wrote:
I am not a YEC and am happy for dinos and birds to be flapping about together without man. I respect YECS and hey have some interesting points. If they make their case for young earth, all the better.
Then you are willfully stupid.

OEC's only deny SLIGHTLY less reality than YEC's, who reject it in its totality.
MazHere wrote:
The point is dinos never adapted/evolved into birds. Avian footprints demonstrating a reversed hallux, have been dated to 212mya, predate their previous ancestors and have necessitated the invention of a mythical theropod with modern avian feet to explain them. Would you like to see the link?
This data, of course, puts modern birds more than half way back to the Devonian, where they belong. Given birds have hollow bones we are lucky to even have this data.
Not a problem unless you find MODERN birds BEFORE the first dinos and reptiles. In the meantime we have the same body plan, dinos with feathers, protein similarities and genetic atavisms which support our case.
MazHere wrote:
How about you? Do you have faith in the dino to bird thing, regardless of all evidence I can present against it?
You don't HAVE evidence against it. The MOST you can do is point out that the precise timelines aren't all figured out yet. NOT a big deal. That's like saying you don't know what Grandpa had for breakfast on his 15th birthday therefore you cannot exist.

And remember - on the offchance that you COULD perform a miracle of Biblical proportions by falsifying evolution and becoming the most famous scientist who ever lived, we can solve that problem EASY.

Just do what you do - evolution iz true cuz Goddidit.

Pity that back in reality, of each of our positions there's only one with evidence.

And it ain't you.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106908 Nov 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you are willfully stupid.
OEC's only deny SLIGHTLY less reality than YEC's, who reject it in its totality.
<quoted text>
Not a problem unless you find MODERN birds BEFORE the first dinos and reptiles. In the meantime we have the same body plan, dinos with feathers, protein similarities and genetic atavisms which support our case.
<quoted text>
You don't HAVE evidence against it. The MOST you can do is point out that the precise timelines aren't all figured out yet. NOT a big deal. That's like saying you don't know what Grandpa had for breakfast on his 15th birthday therefore you cannot exist.
And remember - on the offchance that you COULD perform a miracle of Biblical proportions by falsifying evolution and becoming the most famous scientist who ever lived, we can solve that problem EASY.
Just do what you do - evolution iz true cuz Goddidit.
Pity that back in reality, of each of our positions there's only one with evidence.
And it ain't you.
But at what point did Theopods like maz first appear and are they not proof devolution?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#106909 Nov 25, 2013
Yo,Maz! This might be of interest to you (but probably not):

ScienceShot: How the Whale Became the Whale

24 November 2013 1:00 pm

About 54 million years ago, a semiaquatic deerlike creature headed into the water for good, giving rise to whales and their relatives. The newly sequenced genome of the minke whale, a baleen whale found worldwide, tells the story of how stressful this move to live underwater was.

An international team has decoded the genomes of four minke whales, a fin whale, a bottlenose dolphin, and a finless porpoise, comparing these cetaceans’ genes to the equivalent genes in other mammals. It found whale-specific mutations in genes important for the regulation of salt and of blood pressure and for antioxidants that get rid of charged oxygen molecules that can harm cells. These molecules increase in number as the whale uses up its oxygen supply during dives.

Whales also had larger numbers of related genes, called gene families, for dealing with sustained dives, the team reports online today in Nature Genetics. Overall, 1156 gene families had expanded, and several increased the number of enzymes that help the whale cope with low-to-no oxygen conditions.

A few of those expanded families are also expanded in naked mole rats, which live underground where oxygen is scarce. But the numbers of genes for body hair and for taste and smell had decreased. And of course, there were genes and gene families that help explain why whales look the way they do."

<end cut/paste>

Expanded paper here (summarized above):

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurren...

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106910 Nov 25, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
Yo,Maz! This might be of interest to you (but probably not):
ScienceShot: How the Whale Became the Whale
24 November 2013 1:00 pm
About 54 million years ago, a semiaquatic deerlike creature headed into the water for good, giving rise to whales and their relatives. The newly sequenced genome of the minke whale, a baleen whale found worldwide, tells the story of how stressful this move to live underwater was.
An international team has decoded the genomes of four minke whales, a fin whale, a bottlenose dolphin, and a finless porpoise, comparing these cetaceans’ genes to the equivalent genes in other mammals. It found whale-specific mutations in genes important for the regulation of salt and of blood pressure and for antioxidants that get rid of charged oxygen molecules that can harm cells. These molecules increase in number as the whale uses up its oxygen supply during dives.
Whales also had larger numbers of related genes, called gene families, for dealing with sustained dives, the team reports online today in Nature Genetics. Overall, 1156 gene families had expanded, and several increased the number of enzymes that help the whale cope with low-to-no oxygen conditions.
A few of those expanded families are also expanded in naked mole rats, which live underground where oxygen is scarce. But the numbers of genes for body hair and for taste and smell had decreased. And of course, there were genes and gene families that help explain why whales look the way they do."
<end cut/paste>
Expanded paper here (summarized above):
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurren...
How about taking bets. Will Maz . 1. Ignore your post 2. Distort your post. 3. Attack the credibility of your post. 4. Attack you personally.

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 Republicans downplay Trump rally unrest in Cali... 10 min Chilli J 233
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 11 min ICE 222,738
News Trump: 'We can't continue to allow China to rap... 14 min byrvtuk 20
News Elephants perform for final time at Ringling Bros. 18 min kuda 4
News Not everyone happy about change to $20 25 min ICE 88
News Voters have trust issues with Hillary Clinton? ... (Jul '15) 26 min True Judgment 5,373
News Anti-Trump Protesters Say Something Extremely S... 32 min France 5
News Violence follows California Trump rally, about ... 1 hr Go Blue Forever 214
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr Coffee Party 381,190
News North Carolina's rush to bigotry 3 hr woodtick57 2,068
News Dueling groups to rally at Confederate landmark 7 hr Holy Silicon Wafer 495
More from around the web