Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216714 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.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#62710 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a creationist. Don't give me that typical anti-creationist attack. I simply don't see real evidence for TOE.
Speciation of Lake Victoria cichlids is pretty good evidence. The way that our immune system operates to develop antibodies to all the antigens we encounter is another. The fossil record. The molecular evidence showing the fusion of two ancestoral chromosomes into what is now our chromosome two. The conservation of DNA and RNA amongst all living organisms. The ubiquity of Hox genes in animals. The list goes on and on.

What surprises me more than anything is those that don't accept evolution despite this paucity of evidence.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62711 Dec 3, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Er, no it isn't. It is a book of faith. What it is demonstratably not is a history book, truthful or not. Too much of it has been disproved for it to be that. Why post this when by pointing to both Jericho and Noah (to pick two well-known examples from many), it can be shown to be untrue. I have no desire to beliettle your faith, but posting this type of rubbish is not going to persuade on person on here that you have a clear perception of what the bible is.
Far from that. I am not ready to persuade any one on anything but to defend what i think is right. The bible is a book of historical truth, whether you like to hear that or not. Among the religious books archaeologically, the bible stands out.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62712 Dec 3, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no it didn't, it started in Germany and then went through mutations, adaptation and development.
Would you just shut up and learn for once. English(modern English) started in England, though, it had influences from several European and other languages, but modern English as a language developed and started in England.
Old English is akin to German.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#62713 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Not there. Scientists haven't been able to achieve a working version of a protocell in a lab. I think their theories are based on the current life cycles of RNA in current conditions and assume it is what took place millions or billions of years ago. I think I give up searching for an answer. I don't want to beat my brains out!
I hardly consider a laboratory setting and the perhaps 10 to 20 years of research that any particular scientist would dedicate to attempting to create a primitive life form to the vastness of earth and millions and millions of years of random reactions that would have likely been required to give rise to the first primitive life forms.

That is like looking under a microscope for .00000000000000000000000000000 00000000000001 seconds, not seeing a diamond instantaneously, and therefore concluding they don't exist.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62714 Dec 3, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no it didn't, it started in Germany and then went through mutations, adaptation and development.
Sorry for telling you to shut up, but we all have eyes. Germans spoke and are still speaking German. English is not spoken in Germany but in England, the nations that speaks English as a native tongue had influence from England, the US, Canada, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, etc.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62715 Dec 3, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no it didn't, it started in Germany and then went through mutations, adaptation and development.
Lastly, the Saxons, Jutes, and the Angles, a Germanic tribes, can be said to be the originators of the English language. These tribes left Germany completely and finally settled in England, mixing up with locals to form the English race. These tribes, came with a language closer to German, known as the old English, but this language under went a series of developments from middle to modern English, these developments did not took place in Germany but in England.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#62716 Dec 3, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Speciation of Lake Victoria cichlids is pretty good evidence. The way that our immune system operates to develop antibodies to all the antigens we encounter is another. The fossil record. The molecular evidence showing the fusion of two ancestoral chromosomes into what is now our chromosome two. The conservation of DNA and RNA amongst all living organisms. The ubiquity of Hox genes in animals. The list goes on and on.
What surprises me more than anything is those that don't accept evolution despite this paucity of evidence.
Perhaps those theories are now outdated. From my source:

[By 2010, real biologists had determined that gene regulatory networks (GRNs) build and operate all living things. There are gene regulatory networks for everything that happens in them, and some networks control other networks in a chain of command. Each species has a body plan, and it is encoded in the DNA. "Development of the body plan is caused by the operation of GRNs". "Embryonic development is an enormous informational transaction, in which DNA sequence data generate and guide the system-wide spatial deployment of specific cellular functions." That is, an embryo grows because GRNs tell other GRNs what to do at the right time and place and in the right order; it is tremendously complex. GRNs then guide the development of different types of cells, organs, and growth of the embryo into an adult. They also control each creature's abilities and the way it responds to changes around it. Among the most studied are sea urchins, which are low on the evolutionist's "tree of life".]

How does TOE explain how GRNs came to be?

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62717 Dec 3, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I'll become an inventor. It's great to know it only takes faith. Whew, I was scared it would need a lot of time, luck, hard work, money, brilliant insight, education, study, or even (shudder) mathematics, patent lawyers, support from my starving wife and children, and things I am even too dumb to imagine. I'm a gonna start with inventing that I can fuel my car with dirty water and if there is the slightest problem with that, I'll just faith it into reality. Ta dahhh, faithless ones, I'll see you at the pump, as I wizz by in my mercury...
You are just giving a wrong definition of the word, faith.
Faith does not imply test, it implies positive thinking. It does not mean putting your strength to test, it means challenging what you believe to test in a positive way, and if God sees the intent of ones heart, he will answer that person positively, whether he is a Christian or not.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62718 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Not there. Scientists haven't been able to achieve a working version of a protocell in a lab. I think their theories are based on the current life cycles of RNA in current conditions and assume it is what took place millions or billions of years ago. I think I give up searching for an answer. I don't want to beat my brains out!
What do you mean "Not there." What were you hoping to find?

As I said abiogenesis is a work in progress.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#62719 Dec 3, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I hardly consider a laboratory setting and the perhaps 10 to 20 years of research that any particular scientist would dedicate to attempting to create a primitive life form to the vastness of earth and millions and millions of years of random reactions that would have likely been required to give rise to the first primitive life forms.
That is like looking under a microscope for .00000000000000000000000000000 00000000000001 seconds, not seeing a diamond instantaneously, and therefore concluding they don't exist.
We know diamonds come from carbon. We can even produce fake ones. But living cells, we can't create them in a lab.

Since: Nov 12

Raymond, Canada

#62720 Dec 3, 2012
Regards the newgeology.us site
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. Total garbage.
Didn't seem to me to be total garbage. I only took a quick superficial look, but even if it were all just crafty misdirection, it sure would be a good test for anyone who thought they had understood evolutionary theory, to find out if they really understood it. Wish I had time for it.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62721 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps those theories are now outdated. From my source:
[By 2010, real biologists had determined that gene regulatory networks (GRNs) build and operate all living things. There are gene regulatory networks for everything that happens in them, and some networks control other networks in a chain of command. Each species has a body plan, and it is encoded in the DNA. "Development of the body plan is caused by the operation of GRNs". "Embryonic development is an enormous informational transaction, in which DNA sequence data generate and guide the system-wide spatial deployment of specific cellular functions." That is, an embryo grows because GRNs tell other GRNs what to do at the right time and place and in the right order; it is tremendously complex. GRNs then guide the development of different types of cells, organs, and growth of the embryo into an adult. They also control each creature's abilities and the way it responds to changes around it. Among the most studied are sea urchins, which are low on the evolutionist's "tree of life".]
How does TOE explain how GRNs came to be?
You have to learn to crawl before you learn to run.

You are nitpicking. Even if the answer is not known yet it does not matter. We know that evolution happened the amount of evidence for it is beyond your ability to comprehend right now.

You don't even know what evidence is yet. You have as much as admitted this. If we answer this foolish question of yours you will simply bring up another.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62722 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
We know diamonds come from carbon. We can even produce fake ones. But living cells, we can't create them in a lab.
Yet. And we don't have to. Some day soon we will be able to.

And as far as the link I gave you, it seems you missed this page:

http://exploringorigins.org/protocells.html

It describes how the first protocells would have replicated themselves.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62723 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
We know diamonds come from carbon. We can even produce fake ones. But living cells, we can't create them in a lab.
And of course the analogy went right over your head.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62724 Dec 3, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
Regards the newgeology.us site
<quoted text>
Didn't seem to me to be total garbage. I only took a quick superficial look, but even if it were all just crafty misdirection, it sure would be a good test for anyone who thought they had understood evolutionary theory, to find out if they really understood it. Wish I had time for it.
Yes, it is total garbage. Even Cybele knew it was total garbage, otherwise she would have picked out some point that seemed valid from it.

Since: Nov 12

Raymond, Canada

#62725 Dec 3, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You are just giving a wrong definition of the word, faith.
Faith does not imply test, it implies positive thinking. It does not mean putting your strength to test, it means challenging what you believe to test in a positive way, and if God sees the intent of ones heart, he will answer that person positively, whether he is a Christian or not.
In the context of inventors having needed faith, I don't quite follow where I was using it in place of the word "test". It seemed to me that I was using it "constructively". In any case you are saying that added to faith is the necessity of good intent. Luckily I only see good intent in wishing to save money at the pump, and I am sure God knows that. However I wished you had warned me before I set out to turn dirty water into fuel, just in case I might have tripped over that. So given faith and good intent, my inventing plan is full steam ahead, right? Am I massing anything else?

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#62726 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
We know diamonds come from carbon. We can even produce fake ones. But living cells, we can't create them in a lab.
You are missing the point of my comment. You cannot duplicate the size of the earth or the millions if not hundreds of millions of years it took for the reactions necessary for life to arise in a 40 foot by 120 foot lab and 20 years of research time.

In other words just because something hasn't happened in a 40 foot by 120 foot lab over 20 years, doesn't mean it didn't happen on something the size of the earth over millions if not hundreds of millions of years. There is a problem with scale when it comes to these experiments.

Since: Sep 12

Dallas, TX

#62727 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>No one claims that the ToE is fact. Evolution, the observation, is fact. The ToE is our attempt to explain our observations.

That you don't know this - that you cannot be specific enough to separate evolution the observation from the theory of evolution tells us you don't understand anything about biological science.

That's why we can't take you seriously - you're not saying much of interest.
To simplify its easier for a evo to call you stupid or ignorant than admit they don't know.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62728 Dec 3, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
In the context of inventors having needed faith, I don't quite follow where I was using it in place of the word "test". It seemed to me that I was using it "constructively". In any case you are saying that added to faith is the necessity of good intent. Luckily I only see good intent in wishing to save money at the pump, and I am sure God knows that. However I wished you had warned me before I set out to turn dirty water into fuel, just in case I might have tripped over that. So given faith and good intent, my inventing plan is full steam ahead, right? Am I massing anything else?
Ofcourse. Afterall technology is the creation of something out of nothing.
Coal as product came from dead vegetative and organic remains of living and non living matter, with faith, the mineral resources known as coal came out.

Since: Sep 12

Dallas, TX

#62729 Dec 3, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>How about from the muslim, hindhu, sikh, buddhist, confucians and any number of relgions that do not subscribe to satan's viewpoint?
Don't know don't care won't care. I was only explaining a post put out by someone else. As far as I'm concerned my "narrow mind" is switched on and when you're standing in front of God you can convince him he doesn't exist.

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 Trump would deport children of illegal immigrants (Aug '15) 2 min Truth is might 694
News Longtime GOP Texas Gov. Perry wins another term (Nov '10) 8 min UIDIOTRACEMAkeWOR... 23,801
News Trump slams SNL again: "Totally biased," "unwat... 14 min Absentee Ballot 27
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 22 min Just call me ABE 2 253,242
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 54 min Brian_G 403,888
News Trump win casts pall of uncertainty over Asia 1 hr HANSENSPANISDAEGU... 50
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Brian_G 62,318
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... (May '16) 1 hr PizzaGateFoxFauxNews 14,661
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Susanm 1,458,593
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 3 hr TRUMP WINNERS 207
More from around the web