Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 217099 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: Apr 12

Jinan, China

#50375 Oct 4, 2012
greymouser wrote:
Harry Potter, who saved the virgin Hermione, will be known as the divine savior of the world in a few hundred years.
I thought it was Ginny Weasley that he saved from Voldemort.
But I could be wrong.
We'd both better get our facts right, because it's every bit as important to know our Harry Potter as it is for us to know our Bible.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#50376 Oct 4, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
anonymous wrote:
"Unfortunately, people preaching Evolution rarely do observe scientific method."
I have a couple of comments in addition to those which Gillette made.
Firstly, only a small fraction of scientists who accept Evolutionary theory seem to preach it. Those few who are visible to us--Gould, Dawkins, Gardner, Sagan, Pigliucci--may give us the impression that all Evolutionist scientists are on the march.
But the fact is that most Evolutionary scientists are all wrapped up in their lab work and don't give a hoot in hades what the rest of us think.
Secondly, a conversion to Evolutionary theory is quite different from a religious conversion. Of those Evolutionist Crusaders mentioned above, I have been acquainted with only one, and that is Piliucci. He said that he has won very few if any instant converts. Rather, he has occasionally had a member of the audience come up to him with a few questions after the debate. He would give the person a suggested bibliography and send a few letters back and forth before the person would finally grasp the concept.
If Evolutionist speakers conducted their meetings with choir singing and altar calls, I would tend to agree with you.
I'm not really thinking about scientists as much as political activists. Preaching facts probably sounds silly to any professional scientist. Facts stand on their own. Evolution is a theory based on facts but it doesn't really compel you to change your behavior in any way.

The problem, I'm sure, is that most scientists don't want to put their careers at risk by allowing themselves to be turned into mouthpieces by political types. However, in places such as this forum, you kind of invite it upon yourself, eh?

I don't like seeing lighting strike near me. I'd rather bleed off those charges before anything that could be interpreted as "divine intervention" occurs! ;)

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#50377 Oct 4, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
---because an Intelligent Designer would create us in our present form in the first place, rather than sending us through millions of years of evolution.
---because an Intelligent Designer would not clutter up our bodies with vestigial organs and junk DNA.
---because an Intelligent Designer would endow us with ideal optical organs, like those possessed by the squid.
---because an Intelligent Designer would not make human women suffer childbirth pains more intensely than do female quadrupeds.
---because an Intelligent Designer would recognize that a duodecimal system would be more efficient than a decimal system, and therefore endow us with six fingers on each hand rather than only five.
---because an Intelligent Designer would not leave us with inner brains which disturb the intended work of the outer brain.
---because an Intelligent Designer would design male heterosexuality and female heterosexuality as exact opposites of each other, so that there would be less misunderstanding between men and women.
Um...you do realize that some of that came after the fall right?

Since: Apr 12

Jinan, China

#50378 Oct 4, 2012
anonymous wrote:
Don't dodge the political implications. Deal with them!
Thanks for the exhortation, but no thanks.
Like the population at large, the members of the skeptic group in Tennessee abounded in political disagreement.
(Contrary to those on this thread who try to establish that all Evolutionists are Communists.)
I tried to tell them that those on both sides were wasting their time, because neither party will ever take over the world.
Dogs tend to hunt in groups, so dogs are more gregarious than most other animals.
That is why a dog comes wagging his tail when his master comes home.
Cats tend to hunt solo, so cats are less gregarious than most other animals.
That is why a cat DOESN'T come wagging his tail when his master comes home.
If we were dogs, we would all be socialists.
If we were cats, we would all be libertarians.
It so happens, however, that we are simians, and simians hunt in groups some and hunt solo some.
That is why we run the whole gamut.

PS This is off the subject, but I would like to vote for any minor party candidate who promises to get out of Afghanistan.
If you know of such a candidate, please reply quick, so I can send in for an absentee ballot.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#50379 Oct 4, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Um...you do realize that some of that came after the fall right?
Meaning what?

Not your deity's doing?

Since: Apr 12

Jinan, China

#50380 Oct 4, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
Um...you do realize that some of that came after the fall right?
Oh, so that's it!
Then please dig me up a pre-Precipitate fossil.
I'd like to see one.

Duane Gish tells us that all animals are vegetarians before the Fall.
But every picture of a carnivorous dinosaur that I have ever seen had a proportionately larger head and sharper teeth.

If you can find a pre-Precipitate tyrannosaurus, I'd like to see that too.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#50381 Oct 4, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so that's it!
Then please dig me up a pre-Precipitate fossil.
I'd like to see one.
Duane Gish tells us that all animals are vegetarians before the Fall.
But every picture of a carnivorous dinosaur that I have ever seen had a proportionately larger head and sharper teeth.
If you can find a pre-Precipitate tyrannosaurus, I'd like to see that too.
Double Fine found one!

AND, it's teeth were flat! True story!

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

UK

#50382 Oct 4, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Running from what?
The arguments Christian creation that didn't involve evolution or that tried to defend evolutionÂ…
You haven't forgotten them have you, there's only three.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

UK

#50383 Oct 4, 2012
Against Christian creation
I have no idea how that got left out

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

UK

#50384 Oct 4, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Double Fine found one!
AND, it's teeth were flat! True story!
Is this a joke or a genuine claim?
If it's genuine then I'll save Thomas some time and ask for a link and a photo.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#50385 Oct 4, 2012
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this a joke or a genuine claim?
If it's genuine then I'll save Thomas some time and ask for a link and a photo.
It's genuine!

It is at my house. You and any scientist can come see it.

It is on display, next to my Cambrian rabbit
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#50386 Oct 4, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the exhortation, but no thanks.
Like the population at large, the members of the skeptic group in Tennessee abounded in political disagreement.
(Contrary to those on this thread who try to establish that all Evolutionists are Communists.)
I tried to tell them that those on both sides were wasting their time, because neither party will ever take over the world.
Dogs tend to hunt in groups, so dogs are more gregarious than most other animals.
That is why a dog comes wagging his tail when his master comes home.
Cats tend to hunt solo, so cats are less gregarious than most other animals.
That is why a cat DOESN'T come wagging his tail when his master comes home.
If we were dogs, we would all be socialists.
If we were cats, we would all be libertarians.
It so happens, however, that we are simians, and simians hunt in groups some and hunt solo some.
That is why we run the whole gamut.
PS This is off the subject, but I would like to vote for any minor party candidate who promises to get out of Afghanistan.
If you know of such a candidate, please reply quick, so I can send in for an absentee ballot.
And I guess if you're part dog and part cat, you're SOL! Hmm.

I don't know why you can't mix libertarian and socialist ideas.

Getting out of Afghanistan is a no-brainer. Obama has dodged the issue by sticking to the Bush plan for withdrawal. The real issue was whether or not we should have been there to begin with. I believe that Colin Powell thought of it as a "You break it, you buy it" political trap. I agree with Colin.

The Middle East is in an artificial state of oil wealth combined with cultural poverty. They can't defend their own borders because they are constantly engaged in internal conflicts. The problem is made worse by oil which external factions want, and are quite ready to destabilize governments to get.

It's a waste of our time. Just engage in surgical strikes when terrorists home-base there. Apologize afterwards, and punish the corporations who disregard U.N. efforts to keep the peace.

My cat is not a tail-wagger. He is a social critter though. When I come home, he's at the door and plays point man as I go up the stairs. My hero! I think the better distinction is that cats don't like to follow alphas. There are exceptions. Lions and (heh!) Smilodons do or did hunt in packs but at least with lions we don't see alpha males leading a hunt.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#50387 Oct 4, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
It's genuine!
It is at my house. You and any scientist can come see it.
It is on display, next to my Cambrian rabbit
Does your Cambrian rabbit carry a cane and answer to the name "Uncle Wiggily"?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#50388 Oct 4, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Evolutionists come up with definitions and change them as suits.
All humans come up with definitions and change them as suits. The nature of language itself is that definitions change over time.
MazHere wrote:
There is no point asking the definition of anything according to evolutionists as they ignore differences and play pick a box of traits that suit.
On the contrary, we do indeed notice differences. And the theory of evolution *explains why* there are differences. It has to do with both reproduction with variation and with natural selection.
MazHere wrote:
An ape is a tailess primate that has a fur coat, uses quadrapedal movement, is unable to make meaning of the world by the use of abstract thought, is not an obligate biped, has 38 chromosomes.
The definition of "ape" does not require a "fur coat", nor "quadrapedal movement", nor the inability to make meaning of the world, nor not being an "obligate biped". Oh, and chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes, not 38. I guess chimps aren't apes, eh?
MazHere wrote:
A human is a primate that does not have a fur coat,is an obligate biped, is able to make meaning of the world through abstract thought and sophisyticated language, has 36 chromosomes.
Then you must not be human. You have 46 chromosomes, not 36.
MazHere wrote:
Indeed a child can spot the odd one out with a human in with a bunch of apes.
A child can identify each species of ape and what makes it unique among all other apes.
Johny

Seabrook, TX

#50389 Oct 4, 2012
Drew Smith,
The information problem of evolution is obvious. How did added function develop in life-forms that are highly coupled from a systems point of view. How improbable is probable? These are the questions that evolutionists can't answer and where their faith sets in.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#50390 Oct 4, 2012
Johny wrote:
Drew Smith,
The information problem of evolution is obvious. How did added function develop in life-forms that are highly coupled from a systems point of view. How improbable is probable? These are the questions that evolutionists can't answer and where their faith sets in.
You confuse knowing every detail with seeing the whole picture. It is not necessary to know exactly why something happens,
but you can see that it did happen. We then try to understand why these things happened. We are pretty close to solving many of these riddles, but the riddles will never end.

So there is no problem with understanding evolution took place, the problem is our questions as to why get ever more complicated and precise. We see the whole picture but as we magnify it more and more. We find more details and inevitably ask more questions.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#50391 Oct 4, 2012
Johny wrote:
Drew Smith,
The information problem of evolution is obvious. How did added function develop in life-forms that are highly coupled from a systems point of view. How improbable is probable? These are the questions that evolutionists can't answer and where their faith sets in.
Never make the claim that you have found a question that evolutionists cannot answer. And even if they cannot answer it that does not make the theory of evolution false. New functions have been observed to have evolved. That makes your objection that we don't know how they occurred moot. The fact is that life has developed new functions many times over. There may be many different answers to how life evolved new functions. The fact is that it has happened and we can prove that.

Meanwhile you might start your research into answer here:
https://www.google.com/search...
Johny

Seabrook, TX

#50392 Oct 4, 2012
If we are scientific we need to show that evolution is even probable. It is NOT and stories are made up to explain the supposed transitions between species. Science is concerned about knowing the details and if you leave out most the details you do not have science.

"New function has been observed to evolve."

Evolutionists assume that "new function" can evolve but how do they not know that it is the robustness that is programmed into life to keep it existing? Or is it the genetic variation that exists in a species - preprogrammed information to allow a species to adapt to changing environments. The problem here is that this COULD be evidence for design but evolutionist hijack it and claim it for evolution. Again to prove evolution they need to show that it actually is new and not pre-programmed into the cell.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#50393 Oct 4, 2012
Johny wrote:
If we are scientific we need to show that evolution is even probable. It is NOT and stories are made up to explain the supposed transitions between species. Science is concerned about knowing the details and if you leave out most the details you do not have science.
"New function has been observed to evolve."
Evolutionists assume that "new function" can evolve but how do they not know that it is the robustness that is programmed into life to keep it existing? Or is it the genetic variation that exists in a species - preprogrammed information to allow a species to adapt to changing environments. The problem here is that this COULD be evidence for design but evolutionist hijack it and claim it for evolution. Again to prove evolution they need to show that it actually is new and not pre-programmed into the cell.
Johny...are you an evolutionary specialist?? Is it a field that you have a doctorate in? Something you have worked with for years and years? Have you actually read any of Darwin's books cover to cover?

Do you subscribe to the views of AiG or ICR or The Discovery Institute? Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#50394 Oct 4, 2012
Johny wrote:
If we are scientific we need to show that evolution is even probable. It is NOT and stories are made up to explain the supposed transitions between species. Science is concerned about knowing the details and if you leave out most the details you do not have science.
"New function has been observed to evolve."
Evolutionists assume that "new function" can evolve but how do they not know that it is the robustness that is programmed into life to keep it existing? Or is it the genetic variation that exists in a species - preprogrammed information to allow a species to adapt to changing environments. The problem here is that this COULD be evidence for design but evolutionist hijack it and claim it for evolution. Again to prove evolution they need to show that it actually is new and not pre-programmed into the cell.
Nope, backward, but that is to be expected from a creationist. Since there is more than enough evidence to show that evolution is a fact claims like "we need to show that evolution is probable" must be shown to be right by the people claiming this.

We have done more than enough work to support our side. If you want to come up with offbeat ideas you need to find support for them yourself.

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) 1 min Brad 1,460,389
News If feds try to ID deportable immigrants using C... 2 min Trump your President 3
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... (May '16) 3 min President Donald ... 14,926
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 5 min Denny CranesPlace 2,185
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 7 min Rogue Scholar 05 231,226
News As anger over election of Donald Trump erupts, ... 8 min berklee 3,204
News White rage and racist thought: How history puts... 8 min KIP 85
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 22 min positronium 404,315
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 26 min Faith Michigan 686
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 29 min Chicagoan by Birth 253,615
More from around the web