Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216637 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.

HTS

Englewood, CO

#47317 Sep 21, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
http://www.topix.com/forum/new s/evolution/T9QUH2OMJGJK10DEH/ post47176
<quoted text>
You're not a very curious guy, are you? You should have looked at the links. You would have liked one of them.
I have read extensively the genetic arguments for evolution. The entire house of cards is founded on an arbitrary rejection of Deity. Once God has been dismissed, biologists search for naturalistic answers. That is not sciencej... that is religion masquerading as science.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#47318 Sep 21, 2012
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect. Einstein perceived a certain order (mass, gravity, electromagnetic force, weak atomic force, strong atomic force) in the Cosmos that he could describe using mathematics and physics. He ATTRIBUTED this order to "god".
That is NOT the same thing as having research or emiprical evidence for the existence of "god".
<quoted text>
Yes it did, but even with all of his scientific brilliance, Einstein NEVER, EVER produced any research or empirical evidence for the existence of "god".
He "saw" the "hand of god" in the Cosmos because he had an emotional, psychological, philosophical and theological NEED to see the "hand of god" at work in the Cosmos.
The reason I brought up Einstein was to counter the ridiculous flying spaghetti monster analogy. The suggestion that no rational person can find objective evidence of God is a lie perpetrated by atheists. The flying spaghetti monster parody is an insult to thousands of respected scientists who believe in God. It only underscores that atheistic evolution is a veritable religion, and those who actively promote it are religious zealots. Just listen to the likes of Richard Dawkins with his incessant ranting about the "evils" of religion. He is not a scientist... he is a religous fanatic.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#47319 Sep 21, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And I see that HTS admits to lying again by not responding to the very important question at the end of my post.
What are the supposed "metaphysical assumptions" that evolution is based upon?
And while I am at it, can any creationists explain why the fossil record appears the way it does? Can you explain how the deposits were formed? No one has yet propose a mechanism that they are willing to defend.
You are wasting your time and effort, I think. I doubt seriously you will get any type of logical discussion on these matters from HTS.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#47320 Sep 21, 2012
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>

He "saw" the "hand of god" in the Cosmos because he had an emotional, psychological, philosophical and theological NEED to see the "hand of god" at work in the Cosmos.
And you apparently have an emotional and theological need to look at nature and see no evidence of God. You look at processes that no one understands and conclude that no intelligence produced them. How is that science? That is religion. Can you tell me how a microbe can evolve into a man? Can you demonstrate a single step of the process through experimentation or even on paper? No. You have FAITH in your materialistic worldview.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#47321 Sep 21, 2012
HTS wrote:
So you're just going to accept whatever most scientists say, and not evaluate whether or not a hypothesis is logical? There is no point in this debate, if that is your attitude.
What debate? The debate about evolution ended long ago. The scientists have spoken. The theory of evolution is correct. We know that a primeval ancestral cell evolved into the modern tree of life over deep time in a blind, undirected, naturalistic process. It's settled. All that remains to be done is elucidate the details. Your church doesn't get a vote. Neither do those of us arguing with you here.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#47322 Sep 21, 2012
HTS wrote:
Crystal formation is, as I'm sur you're aware, reflective of the properties of molecules. To compare such a phenomenon to complex sequences of genetic code with language-type functionality is, frankly, asinine.
The genetic code has no language-type functionality, at least it didn't until Venter and his team put linguistic-type messages - watermarks as they called them - into their synthetic genome.

From "Secret Messages Coded Into DNA Of Venter Synthetic Bacteria" at http://singularityhub.com/2010/05/24/venters-...

"To verify that they had synthesized a new organism and not assembled the DNA from another natural bacteria, scientists encoded a series of ‘watermarks’ into the genes of M. mycoides JCVI-syn1.0. There are four of these hidden messages: an explanation of the coding system used, a URL address for those who crack the code to go visit, a list of 46 authors and contributors, and a series of famous quotes."

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#47323 Sep 21, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>There is no "junk DNA"... that was a myth propagated by DarwinBots. It was a failed predictions of NDT.
Are you saying there isn't DNA that does not code for anything?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#47324 Sep 21, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> And you apparently have an emotional and theological need to look at nature and see no evidence of God. You look at processes that no one understands and conclude that no intelligence produced them. How is that science? That is religion. Can you tell me how a microbe can evolve into a man? Can you demonstrate a single step of the process through experimentation or even on paper? No. You have FAITH in your materialistic worldview.
You don't have the least clue about how evolution works or about the evidence that supports it.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#47325 Sep 21, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Are you saying there isn't DNA that does not code for anything?
Not all sequences have been proven functional, but the majority of them are functional, contrary to the decades-old view that 98% of the human genome was "junk".
HTS

Englewood, CO

#47326 Sep 21, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What debate? The debate about evolution ended long ago. The scientists have spoken. The theory of evolution is correct. We know that a primeval ancestral cell evolved into the modern tree of life over deep time in a blind, undirected, naturalistic process. It's settled. All that remains to be done is elucidate the details. Your church doesn't get a vote. Neither do those of us arguing with you here.
Pure unadulterated BS
HTS

Englewood, CO

#47327 Sep 21, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You don't have the least clue about how evolution works or about the evidence that supports it.
Other DarwinBots on this forum have attempted the classic BS such as you are employing. You're the one who doesn't know how evolution works. You IMAGINE that it works...nothing more.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#47328 Sep 21, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The genetic code has no language-type functionality, at least it didn't until Venter and his team put linguistic-type messages - watermarks as they called them - into their synthetic genome.
From "Secret Messages Coded Into DNA Of Venter Synthetic Bacteria" at http://singularityhub.com/2010/05/24/venters-...
"To verify that they had synthesized a new organism and not assembled the DNA from another natural bacteria, scientists encoded a series of ‘watermarks’ into the genes of M. mycoides JCVI-syn1.0. There are four of these hidden messages: an explanation of the coding system used, a URL address for those who crack the code to go visit, a list of 46 authors and contributors, and a series of famous quotes."
Please indicate how the link you provided proves that natural DNA does not have language type functionality.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#47329 Sep 21, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Pure unadulterated BS

No, pure unadulterated science.

Evolution is a fact of science. There is no question about it. You can argue your religious beliefs to make yourself feel better, but the facts have already been determined. Science has rendered its verdict. From there predictions continue to be made and confirmed and evolutionary medicine has begun to transform the field.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#47330 Sep 21, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Other DarwinBots on this forum have attempted the classic BS such as you are employing. You're the one who doesn't know how evolution works. You IMAGINE that it works...nothing more.
Riiiiiiight. That's why your "creation science" is the respected scientific "theory" around the world and has led to countless benefits to humanity.

Oh, wait.

That's not true, is it?

Your "creation science" gets LAUGHED at by pretty much everyone outside of your bronze age FAIRY TALE cult and it has been an ABYSMAL FAILURE at producing anything of scientific or technological value in the 2000+ years it's been around.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#47331 Sep 21, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Other DarwinBots on this forum have attempted the classic BS such as you are employing. You're the one who doesn't know how evolution works. You IMAGINE that it works...nothing more.

This again is nothing more than the result of your religious beliefs swamping your logic circuits.

How come only militant fundy christians and islamics believe this nonsense and the rest of the world has no problem with evolution?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#47332 Sep 21, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>YOu simply proclaimed an outlandish improbability. Show me your math and demonstrate that it doesn't rely on religious assumptions.

You mean like fundies calculating the "odds" against evolution?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#47333 Sep 21, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You have to first have a random mutation appear for natural selection to work. Therefore, parallel evolution is impossible by all probability calculations. I know that DarwinBots don't believe that probability applies to their religion.

YOu simply proclaimed an outlandish improbability. Show me your math and demonstrate that it doesn't rely on religious assumptions.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#47334 Sep 21, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You are of the erroneous mindset that if one can find a material basis for life that no intelligence was required to organize it.

You see capable of hitting the reply button and typing words, but you seem incapable of coming up with rational arguments against the information posted. You just lash out with irrational emotionalism with nothing to support your anti-science contentions.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#47335 Sep 21, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I have read extensively the genetic arguments for evolution. The entire house of cards is founded on an arbitrary rejection of Deity. Once God has been dismissed, biologists search for naturalistic answers. That is not sciencej... that is religion masquerading as science.

You live it a strange universe, sir. In our universe science is based on facts (data). Many biologists are card carrying theists who do not reject god any more than they reject evolution. Yours is simply a religious bias that you cannot support (except to yourself). Occam's razor determines which ideas are addressed first, but ideas which are lacking or do not fit the facts are rejected. Evolution, however, becomes more supported by the day. We are well past the mere fact of evolution and now work on how evolution helps us understand our world and ourselves.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#47336 Sep 21, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus is the only way to everlasting life in the kingdom of Heaven, and his truth is marching on.
Prove it.

You don't even have any research or empirical evidence that he even existed, let alone that he is the "only way to everlasting life in the kingdom of heaven".

Heck, you don't even know if he was married or not:

http://www.examiner.com/article/did-jesus-hav...

Can you imagine it; Jesus having sex with Mary Magdalene?

I always wondered why Mary Magdalene was so prominent at the crucifixion, even being the first to see Jesus after his resurrection, even before his mother saw him. This may explain why.

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, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Cheech the Conser... 1,458,026
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 4 min TRUMP WINNERS 22,396
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 6 min Taletha Roxx 403,611
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 8 min tina anne 62,304
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... (May '16) 8 min ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 14,552
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 9 min Fcvk tRump 151
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 10 min Imprtnrd 1,998
Donald J Trump, our next president (Mar '16) 20 min Chilli J 1,035
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 21 min AMERICAN SUNSHINE 253,009
More from around the web