Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223384 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.

Elohim

Branford, CT

#37874 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It takes a true simpleton to imagine that a worm can evolve into a man. You obviously have no comprehension of the complexity of a single cell, let alone a human being. You simplistically think that you can throw millions of years at a pile of junk and an iPad will eventually form.
Theory of evolution:
matter + time = worm.+ time = man ... Man creates iPad.
Therefore: matter + time = iPad
This is what you call "science"
No. That what fundie creatards call science. Scientists just ignore such caricatures, the rest of us laugh at your abject ignorance and outright stupidity.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#37875 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
Your concept of inheritance is false. For natural selection to act, it must act on a single mutated individual... It it doesn't the trait will become diluted in subsequent generations.
No, mutations provide for variation within populations.(Have you noticed that everyone is a little different from everyone else?) With changing conditions, some variations may confer a slight reproductive advantage and will therefore be better represented in subsequent generations. After a number of generations, an important variation might be nearly universal in a population.
HTS wrote:
You failed to provide any evolutionary explanation of biological altruism. How do mutations resulting in hundreds of pharmacological agents in plants come incorporated into plant populations when they provide o benefit to the plants?
You have provided no convincing examples of purely altruistic adaptations.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#37876 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It takes a true simpleton to imagine that a worm can evolve into a man. You obviously have no comprehension of the complexity of a single cell, let alone a human being. You simplistically think that you can throw millions of years at a pile of junk and an iPad will eventually form.
Theory of evolution:
matter + time = worm.+ time = man ... Man creates iPad.
Therefore: matter + time = iPad
This is what you call "science"
Nope, try again. You are now making the mistake of an argument from incredulity. Just because you do not believe it is possible is not a good argument. We have evidence on our side. You have none on yours. You are an arrogant idiot who will not even examine the evidence against your claim.

What exactly are your beliefs? Are you too afraid to post them? Where do you think all of the sedimentary rocks came from?

And I see you still have not addressed your failure with ERV's. You made a claim and were unwilling to support it when I challenged your nonsense. Let me guess, you have no evidence to support your claim. Fool.

“Shoot First, Think Never”

Since: Jun 09

Elk Grove

#37877 Aug 13, 2012
What then is the Theory of Creation?
Table 2 (below) highlights a series of fundamental components of biblical young-earth creationism, providing a basic rendering of the creationary paradigm. To help illustrate its key points vis-à-vis the evolutionary model, they are presented side by side for comparison. This list is by no means exhaustive, and is likely to grow over time.

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#37878 Aug 13, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Not kidding, but quoting one of the theory of evolution...
Either you are joking, trolling, or just plain stupid.

“Shoot First, Think Never”

Since: Jun 09

Elk Grove

#37879 Aug 13, 2012
Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories
Phenomenon/Condition Creation
Hypothesis
Evolution
Hypothesis
Predominant a priori Assumptions (i.e., Philosophical Basis) concerning the Nature, Source, and Limits of Knowledge[4]
As with all man’s endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past
Man’s scientific endeavors will inevitably affirm man’s autonomy and independence in determining what is true and what is false
Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No
Empirically Falsified?
No
No
Predominant approach
to the Bible[5]
The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data
The biblical record is rejected as a reliable historical basis, and replaced with strict philosophical naturalism as a basis of interpreting empirical data
Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No
Empirically Falsified?
No
No
Ultimate Primal Cause of Time, Space, and Matter/Energy[6]
God Created...
Time, space, and matter are either eternal or self-created.
Empirically Falsifiable?
No
Yes
Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes
Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection
Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes
Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes
Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation
Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes
Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes
Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]
Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms
Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors
Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No
Empirically Falsified?
No
No
Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]
Global Flood & aftermath
Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial
Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No
Empirically Falsified?
No
No
The Ice Age[11]
Post-Flood climate compensation
Unknown
Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No
Empirically Falsified?
No
No
Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]
Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation
Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information
Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes
Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes
Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]
General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected
Strict pattern of million-year depositions from “simple” to “complex” variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic
Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes
Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes
Erratic “Ages” given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]
Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood
Selective and dogmatic use of supportive “ages” & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators
Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes
Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/weird/T9QUH2O...

“Shoot First, Think Never”

Since: Jun 09

Elk Grove

#37880 Aug 13, 2012
Table 2. The so-called “non-existent” creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart.

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp
HTS

Englewood, CO

#37881 Aug 13, 2012
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>No. That what fundie creatards call science. Scientists just ignore such caricatures, the rest of us laugh at your abject ignorance and outright stupidity.
It's not a caricature. It's what evolutionists claim happened. Matter + time =. iPad
Where am I wrong?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#37882 Aug 13, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Arrogant, when dealing with simple minded deniers who have no clue about science, perhaps. A simpleton? Definitely not, that would be you. You are the one who posted the idiotic claim about digitalis, not me.
So still working on that evidence for creation? I have a computer available for a while again and can still try to help you.
Idiotic claim about digitalis? It's saved the lives of thousands of heart patients. The idiotic claim is that it evolved so that it could benefit the plant.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#37883 Aug 13, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, try again. You are now making the mistake of an argument from incredulity. Just because you do not believe it is possible is not a good argument. We have evidence on our side. You have none on yours. You are an arrogant idiot who will not even examine the evidence against your claim.
. Fool.
You need to stop swallowing everything you read from talk origins .
"argument from incredulity" is a convenient, last resort retort when an atheist cannot defend evolution with scientific logic. He simply whips out the "incredulity" card, arrogantly expecting everyone to believe his fairytales without any justification by scientific logic. In short, he claims that it's illogical to question a scientific hypothesis. He thinks others should display faith in Darwinism as he does.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#37884 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Idiotic claim about digitalis? It's saved the lives of thousands of heart patients. The idiotic claim is that it evolved so that it could benefit the plant.
One more time for the slow of thinking. The plant evolved a poison that protects it. People analyzed how the poison works, notably that it slows down the beating of a heart until the animal that ate it either gets very sick or dies. They realized that the poison could be put to good use when the dosage was regulated. The poison already benefited the plant, we learned how to use it after the fact.

You might as well wonder how a tree knew to grow wood so that we could build our houses.

Another fantastic failure of logic by our newest fool.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#37885 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It's not a caricature. It's what evolutionists claim happened. Matter + time =. iPad
Where am I wrong?
LMAO!! You have proven yourself to be devoid of any knowledge of science, scientific methodology, facts, theories or laws.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#37886 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Idiotic claim about digitalis? It's saved the lives of thousands of heart patients. The idiotic claim is that it evolved so that it could benefit the plant.
Alright. Grab a handful of Foxglove and chow down then report back what happened.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#37887 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to stop swallowing everything you read from talk origins .
"argument from incredulity" is a convenient, last resort retort when an atheist cannot defend evolution with scientific logic. He simply whips out the "incredulity" card, arrogantly expecting everyone to believe his fairytales without any justification by scientific logic. In short, he claims that it's illogical to question a scientific hypothesis. He thinks others should display faith in Darwinism as he does.
I have not made any references to Talk Origins yet, but what is wrong with them as a source? They only use peer reviewed science to back up their articles. Peer review is the best way to get an unbiased answer.

And no, when someone makes a stupid argument where they say in effect that they don't believe a theory because it sounds too difficult that is by definition from incredulity. I see that you don't like your mistakes identified and pointed out. If you don't like to see the mistakes you are making you will never learn. And no, I don't expect people to believe scientific theory, not hypothesis, without evidence. You have not shown any interest about seeing any evidence.

And yup, it looks like we have another boardist here.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#37888 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to stop swallowing everything you read from talk origins .
"argument from incredulity" is a convenient, last resort retort when an atheist cannot defend evolution with scientific logic. He simply whips out the "incredulity" card, arrogantly expecting everyone to believe his fairytales without any justification by scientific logic. In short, he claims that it's illogical to question a scientific hypothesis. He thinks others should display faith in Darwinism as he does.
As opposed to you godbots and creaotards whipping out quotes from an ancient tome of dubious origins that has been mistranslated and edited for several millennium?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#37889 Aug 13, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
No ,Oh no, Beelzebub has summoned forth the lying Succubus from his decaying bowels in Hell to defend the believers of nothingness. Back she-whore, back Babylonian slut, return to the foul pit, drag back your belief the universe came from nothing,life from nothing, all is nothing. Let your deluded minions fend for themselves without your horrid lies and promises of answers.Beelzebub,..heed thy master,.. re-chain thy winged she bitch that she may despoil the land of thinking men no more.Let her re-sink her fangs into the asses of the faith driven brain dead evolutionists and pump the poison of galactic idiocy, that they may continue to drool out the putridly unbelieveable lie,...that life came from a puddle of goo..
This is the kind of even, level headed rhetoric that really endears people to the ID argument.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#37890 Aug 13, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
What a moron you are masquarading your religion as science,... there was no life , then there was life, and shazzam! like Gomer Pyle abiogenesis must have worked.Again you have ZERO EVIDENCE OF ABIOGENESIS WORKING,ZERO!Why not go for the alien puddle gooists theory that life came from outer space, it hasn't failed in a lab and only requires your immense faith to work.You are about as scientific as a witch doctor with that statement, you are a puddle goo shaman , voodoo priest,and a poser
If you accept that there was no life at one point and then there was life, why are you so averse to studying how condition A became condition B? You aren't the least bit curious to find out what happened? And if not, why do you have a problem with people trying to explore it?
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#37891 Aug 13, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times does this have to be repeated? We do not "prove" things in science. We observe the evidence. Develop a hypothesis. Testing a hypothesis can turn it into a theory. If it fails a test it is no longer a theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. Now it seems that you have some rather extreme beliefs that you have not offered one wit of evidence to support them. We can name the evidence that supports evolution, and how it does not support creation. What evidence do you have to support your beliefs?
Yes...I Know.....Now, Wheres The Proof ?

Without It...Is Merely Speculation.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#37892 Aug 13, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Classification of living things is not determined by "function". It's determined primarily by physical structure as determined by genome.
Ostriches can't fly, but they are still birds.
<quoted text>
But apparently scientific classification is not.
<quoted text>
According to biologists in general, actually.
<quoted text>
Because each species of ape has a unique genome. This means different structures and therefore, different capabilities, which results in different behaviors.
Do not use scientific jargons o n me...
Humans are unique creatures because, they are created in the likeness of God the creator...

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#37893 Aug 13, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes...I Know.....Now, Wheres The Proof ?
Without It...Is Merely Speculation.
We have supplied the "proof" many many times here. What part of the proof do you have problems with?

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 All 5 first ladies speak out on family separati... 4 min Cordwainer Trout 2
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Rattlesnake Pete 1,779,943
News Father's Day used to highlight fight against Tr... 30 min Bama Yankee 24
News Melania Trump says US should govern - with hear... 32 min NotSoDivineMsM 202
News Congress doesn't want you to eat your dog or cat 48 min Messenger of Love 675
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 1 hr Hypocrite watch 87,137
News Democrats aim to mobilize African-American base... 1 hr Messenger of Love 167
News Trump's land of delusion 3 hr Christshariahns 681
News Nancy Pelosi blasts 'the hypocrisy of all peopl... 3 hr Annie Oakly 154