Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201014 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: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#27356 May 21, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
So before Charles Darwin there was no bloodshed, no hate crimes, no political gangsters? You really need a history lesson.
BTW, Hitler committed all his crimes in the name of God, the Christian God. You should read more.
Sure! No killing, wars, slavery, etc., EVER happened before Darwin.

Gott mit uns. Sigh...

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#27357 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
How does Genesis contradict the existence of hominids?
Perhaps it does not. Perhaps God created many species of hominids and just made sure they left fossil remains in a sequence consistent with evolution. Just like He did with all the other creatures, too. Just our luck that his little game happened to be consistent with the pattern predicted by evolution. No, even AnswersnGenesis does not claim that, do they? They reckon that the animals found in upper layers were better at running from the Floods, lat to be caught.

But I am curious. How come God made sure there were no early fossils of flowering plants of any kind? Were flowers better at running from the Flood than ferns and mosses?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#27358 May 21, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/323...
As we dig up more, Neanderthals look less and less like brutish ape-men, and more like a different racial group of humans (the ‘all out of Africa’ theory has been shown to be impossible by several DNA studies). The latest reconstructions you see, like this Neanderthal child from Gibraltar, look more like modern humans with each re-modelling. Add to that that we know a lot of them had red hair…. I think the argument for them just being another version of human gets stronger.
http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.co...
They were different no doubt, but I have read from at least 3 different sources that from early to late , they see a clear progression in features becoming more human like.
And yes that was a reconstruction of a skull using the methods we have today, in forensic sculpting.
There is another example of this in the second link.
Overall Neanderthal brain mass may have been higher than ours.

However, the forebrain (cerebral cortex) was smaller. Therefore its likely that their ability to think abstractly was lower than ours.

Still, raises the question of what all the rest of that big brain of theirs was for.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#27359 May 21, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
So before Charles Darwin there was no bloodshed, no hate crimes, no political gangsters? You really need a history lesson.
BTW, Hitler committed all his crimes in the name of God, the Christian God. You should read more.
Darwin invented racism too. Don't forget that one.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#27360 May 21, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Benjamin Franklin was one of our greatest independent thinkers. His free thinking and philosophical viewpoint gave rise to disputes that led to the American Revolution. Among his phenomenal achievements was the US Patent office which has been directly responsible for many if not most of our greatest inventions the world enjoys today.
So you have re-baptised ben Franklin as a modern-day Creationist. You are as bad as the Mormons.

You do realize that ben wouldn't even recognize your version of Christianity, don't you?

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

#27361 May 21, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps it does not. Perhaps God created many species of hominids and just made sure they left fossil remains in a sequence consistent with evolution. Just like He did with all the other creatures, too.[/quote]
See that's not so hard to believe is it? We know that the Earth has been here for a few billion years and hominids roamed the Earth for millions of years undergoing evolutionary pressure, becoming the subjects of genetic drift influenced by their different environments and some mutation events. Why wouldn't they evolve? Did the domesticated dog not evolve from several forms of wild canine variants that are no longer in existence today?
[QUOTE who="Chimney1"]<q uoted text>
No, even AnswersnGenesis does not claim that, do they?
I hope you realize that every creationist you talk to doesn't necessarily co-sign to the crap that answersingenesis spills out on a daily basis. However, you and answeringenesis have something in common. You both believe that hominids were some sort of distant cousin of ours. That's a sentiment that I just simply can't agree with.

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

#27362 May 21, 2012
wow that tags in that previous post are all screwy.:p my bad.

Redo.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps it does not. Perhaps God created many species of hominids and just made sure they left fossil remains in a sequence consistent with evolution. Just like He did with all the other creatures, too.
See that's not so hard to believe is it? We know that the Earth has been here for a few billion years and hominids roamed the Earth for millions of years undergoing evolutionary pressure, becoming the subjects of genetic drift influenced by their different environments and some mutation events. Why wouldn't they evolve? Did the domesticated dog not evolve from several forms of wild canine variants that are no longer in existence today?
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, even AnswersnGenesis does not claim that, do they?
I hope you realize that every creationist you talk to doesn't necessarily co-sign to the crap that answersingenesis spills out on a daily basis. However, you and answeringenesis have something in common. You both believe that hominids were some sort of distant cousin of ours. That's a sentiment that I just simply can't agree with.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#27363 May 21, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You think YOU'RE bored with hearing the same crap.
You all have been collectively giving the exact same response to every question for 4000 years.
"Dunno, maybe it's magic".
At least our answers MEAN something.
And our answers are useful!

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#27364 May 21, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps it does not. Perhaps God created many species of hominids and just made sure they left fossil remains in a sequence consistent with evolution. Just like He did with all the other creatures, too. Just our luck that his little game happened to be consistent with the pattern predicted by evolution. No, even AnswersnGenesis does not claim that, do they? They reckon that the animals found in upper layers were better at running from the Floods, lat to be caught.
But I am curious. How come God made sure there were no early fossils of flowering plants of any kind? Were flowers better at running from the Flood than ferns and mosses?
Well, Oaks and Elms are DEFINITELY faster runners than ferns:)

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#27365 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
...You both believe that hominids were some sort of distant cousin of ours. That's a sentiment that I just simply can't agree with.
Sentiments aren't science.

I just can't BELIEVE your sentiments, therefore, they are untrue...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#27366 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
Interesting. I shouldn't have to ask this question but I'm dying to know what problem do you have with that statement I made?
Well generally different species implies unable to reproduce with each other, yet non-African humans also have Neanderthal DNA.
The Nerd wrote:
I never made this claim.
Oh?
The Nerd wrote:
This isn't at all surprising, because they are a different species. There is a difference in the gene which involves skull development. This makes sense, because they are a different species. Which actually supports the fact that Neanderthals are part of God's created "Animal Kinds" and have no real relation to Humans. In short, Neanderthals lack the "Image of God" whereas Humans have advance cognitive capabilities.
Gee, sure sounded like you claimed the differences between humans and neanderthals supported Goddidit with magic to me.(shrug)

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

#27367 May 21, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Well generally different species implies unable to reproduce with each other, yet non-African humans also have Neanderthal DNA.
<quoted text>
Well it should come as no surprise to you that different species are able to reproduce with one another. I can't understand how you as an evolutionists didn't know this, we see this happening in nature. Neanderthals vs Humans would be no different.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#27368 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
Well it should come as no surprise to you that different species are able to reproduce with one another. I can't understand how you as an evolutionists didn't know this, we see this happening in nature. Neanderthals vs Humans would be no different.
*CLOSE* species *MAY* be able to reproduce, sometimes with limited results (offspring being sterile, etc).

And such interspecies reproduction is evidence for evolution.

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

#27369 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you feel if I replace the word 'animals' with the word 'creatures'?
Go ahead. We are creatures too. Why are you offended by tags?

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#27370 May 21, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Overall Neanderthal brain mass may have been higher than ours.
However, the forebrain (cerebral cortex) was smaller. Therefore its likely that their ability to think abstractly was lower than ours.
Still, raises the question of what all the rest of that big brain of theirs was for.
Its hard to say , I picture them being smart but slow to learn new things. Hell humans were for a very long time slow to innovate but even in our remote history our learning curve must have been faster.

They attacked large dangerous game up close, while we developed spears that could be thrown at distance to tackle them.
We know this because they say many or most actually young male
neanderthals had broken bones and many with several during their life. They must have had a hard life , I with they would have survived.

But I guess only the little within us is all there can be anymore. But I do wonder if they could be cloned from the dna
that has been recovered, it most likely would be too incomplete
but just a thought.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#27371 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
Well it should come as no surprise to you that different species are able to reproduce with one another. I can't understand how you as an evolutionists didn't know this, we see this happening in nature. Neanderthals vs Humans would be no different.
Different species cannot mate and produce offspring, lol BECAUSE that IS the deciding factor that determines it is another species.

But between sub species can produce fertile offspring.
A few different species may produce infertile hybrids but that's a dead end road.

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

#27372 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you need to read my initial statement, which would explain why we are on the topic of neanderthals. Because based off your comment here I believe you jumped in the middle of this discussion thinking it's something in which it's not.
I know perfectly well the topic we are in, and I have been following this post. I was replying to your comment that Neardenthals are not our predecessors.

Here are the past few posts
The Nerd wrote:
So we can agree that they were not the immediate predecessors to anatomically modern day humans right?.
thewordofme wrote:
No, we share(d) a common ancestor who was an immediate predecessor to us both,.
The Nerd wrote:
You say no here but your statement suggest that you are in agreement with me. Neanderthals and humans sharing a common ancestor would pretty much omit neanderthals from being the immediate predecessor to anatomically modern-day humans..
Nobody said they were our predecessors.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#27373 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
wow that tags in that previous post are all screwy.:p my bad.
Redo.
<quoted text>
See that's not so hard to believe is it? We know that the Earth has been here for a few billion years and hominids roamed the Earth for millions of years undergoing evolutionary pressure, becoming the subjects of genetic drift influenced by their different environments and some mutation events. Why wouldn't they evolve? Did the domesticated dog not evolve from several forms of wild canine variants that are no longer in existence today?
<quoted text>
I hope you realize that every creationist you talk to doesn't necessarily co-sign to the crap that answersingenesis spills out on a daily basis. However, you and answeringenesis have something in common. You both believe that hominids were some sort of distant cousin of ours. That's a sentiment that I just simply can't agree with.

I would have agreed with you once, then I studied and came to the conclusion it is so. What I think happens and it has happened 5 times is when a great calamity and great extinction event or to a lesser degree a minor one happens it provides the niche for a evolutionary leap , and new species emerge.

It has happened in every single one of them , it is assuredly to happen again. Though the dominate life form is the one to fall hardest, doesn't look good for us, unless we are able top change the cycle of inevitability. But for all intents and purposes your denial that men were not preceded by them and that we are related to them is.....wishful thinking .
frank

Oakland, CA

#27374 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can't God's Image be a non-physical representation?
Like the 'spaghetti monster'?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#27375 May 21, 2012
The question, as you have asked it, incorrectly presupposes that modern humans descend from only *one* of the archaic Homo sapiens populations. But genetics tells us that there was interbreeding between modern humans and both Neanderthals and Denisovans.
Also, you seem to ignore that the dividing line between various populations is always going to be fuzzy.
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you've already cancelled out Neanderthals just by your statement alone, referencing interbreeding between "modern humans" and neanderthals.
"Cancelled out" in what way?

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 8 min Dr Guru 219,264
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 17 min Yeah 1,402,996
News Hillary Clinton picks Tim Kaine as vice preside... 18 min Pigeon Forge Hookers 119
News Trump doubles back to hit Cruz 39 min YouDidntBuildThat 13
News Pundit cites 'Dora the Explorer' to criticize K... 46 min serfs up 12
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 57 min Quirky 5,236
News Will Green Political Machine Foil Trump? 1 hr Cordwainer Trout 5
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 hr Yeah 390,980
News Ohio's Kasich urges working together at NAACP c... 2 hr Lawrence Wolf 95
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 hr Jay 232,738
More from around the web