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.

The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118384 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
OK who do you propose for me to do that. Please keep in mind I will not be open to me bearing the finacial burden to bring something to you and have it tested. So be fair.
Bub, if you have a scientific position it should be EASY for you to demonstrate how that position works and passes the scientific method. We can do that for evolution, same as some physicist could explain the workings of gravity.

So tell us, O wise Jedi, how does the hypothesis of invisible Jewish wizards pass the scientific method objectively?

Thanks in advance.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118385 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
You are correct that was Nebraska man. Thanks for helping me with another hoax that fooled the scientific community for years.
Now you're dangerously close to lying. Neither fooled the scientific COMMUNITY. Both were disputed by many scientists from the very beginning.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118386 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Why do you care? Most the Bible is made up.(shrug)
.
What does this have to do with a partial fossil?
.
<quoted text>
Man, you can't even get your fossils right. Piltdown Man wasn't the tooth.
.
You are correct that was Nebraska man. Thanks for helping me with another hoax that fooled the scientific community for years.
By the way, only fools try to argue against evolution by referring to the extremely few frauds, or even errors that there have been. Since there are probably a thousand religious fraud for every scientific one that makes your religion one thousand times more likely to be false than evolution. When you live in not only a house that is glass, but surrounded by glass furniture, art, and even food, you should not throw stones.

Nebraska man was a simple mistake by a man who had very little education in biology. It was quickly found to be a pig's tooth and was never accepted by scientists. It was accepted by the private press which is why you always go to scientists first for scientific questions.

Piltdown man was a fraud and it fooled quite a few people, but again since it made no sense it was not widely accepted and was not part of the theory of evolution.

Your using these two examples is a much worse crime than me pointing to Jim Jones and the Waco nut and using those to attack Christianity. And those are only two of the whackos created by your side.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118387 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
Why do you care? Most the Bible is made up.(shrug)
.
What does this have to do with a partial fossil?
Nothing. That's the point. You're talking about pieces of evidence when evidence doesn't matter.

To you, anyway.
messianic114 wrote:
You are correct that was Nebraska man. Thanks for helping me with another hoax that fooled the scientific community for years.
So you think they're both fakes? Funny, that. Considering you REJECT the sciences which FOUND them to be fake! You have NO REASON AT ALL WHATSOEVER to presume that they are fake in the first place!

So thanks again for helping me with another demonstration of creationist hypocrisy and dishonesty.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#118388 Jul 17, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
BONG!!!
Yup, there goes another irony meter. You've been dodging all of us since you got here. Well done, hypocrite.
<quoted text>
No, it's up to them to back up their own claims. Peer reviewing yourself is NOT peer review.
<quoted text>
Can you back up this particular assertion and show that it wasn't refused because it was utter bullshite? It's really simple - just explain exactly what it was he found, tell us what he thinks this means, then tell us how his claim passes the scientific method via testing.
After all, I was able to show you how evolution passed the scientific method. So now, I think it's about time that it's your turn. Stop being a massive jessie-wuss wuss by trying to get us to do all your homework for you, and do your own for once. And just remember that if you don't that YOU are stopping your friend's amazing discovery from coming to light in the public world. YOU would be the one censoring him. Which would be deliciously ironic.
Because you know what usually happens with creationists? They often love to claim "peer-review bias", but the VAST majority of them never try to pass their shite through peer-review in the first place. It's almost as if they are afraid of critical scrutiny...
.
<quoted text>
After all, I was able to show you how evolution passed the scientific method.
.
You didn't show me anything like that. Part of the scientific method is testability. Can you cite a test that proves that evolution (meaning change from one kind to another - macro-evolution) occurs. We already know change within a kind can occur like dogs changing size and appearance, but we still have a dog. You may even convince me there can be a change within families, ie a something to the foxes, dogs, wolves etc. For evolution to be true we have to go beyond these limits to a different family. If all life came from one organism, which branched off to others, at some time a change of this magnitude must have occurred. We don't have an observation of this, we don't have fossil evidence of this and we don't have the fossil evidence of the millions of intermediate forms which would be anticipated by evolution.
.
What we have is an assumption that, since change can occur, given enough time (which there isn't) anything is possible biologically speaking.
.
Provide a model which predicts how long it takes for one sequence in the DNA to change and then multiply it by the millions of changes needed for an ape to evolve into a man and lets see if that is possible. Be sure there is some testing to go along with this so we aren't making assumptions so it can be possible.
.
That seems like good science to me, how about you? Is this an unreasonable request?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118389 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I will assume then you have no evidence that it is fabricated.
Who cares what you assume?(shrug)

Any time you wish to stop showing yourself to be a hypocrite, just say so. Until then I don't have to consider your BS to be valid until you can demonstrate it.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118390 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Jerry Springer was on television. So has Weird Al Yankovic. So was I for that matter.
.
If you are implying that Jerry has fabricated stories, I could accept that. One could always interview his guests and find out.
.
<quoted text>
And what nation was that?
.
Read the article yourself, don't be lazy.
You backed nothing you've said yet you call me lazy. Compared to you, I'm a ball of energy, Sluggo.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118391 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Jerry Springer was on television. So has Weird Al Yankovic. So was I for that matter.
.
If you are implying that Jerry has fabricated stories, I could accept that. One could always interview his guests and find out.
.
<quoted text>
And what nation was that?
.
Read the article yourself, don't be lazy.
BONG!!! You really got it in for irony meters today, ain'cha?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118392 Jul 17, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're dangerously close to lying.
Too late, he's long past that. Not that he cares much. Fundies have no shame.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118393 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Jerry Springer was on television. So has Weird Al Yankovic. So was I for that matter.
.
If you are implying that Jerry has fabricated stories, I could accept that. One could always interview his guests and find out.
.
<quoted text>
And what nation was that?
.
Read the article yourself, don't be lazy.
By the way, there were several countries mention in the two articles you posted. South Africa, China, the US and others. I did read them, jackass.

Now are you too lazy to back up anything your posted? I even invited you to pick one but you are apparently too lazy to do even that.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#118394 Jul 17, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>By the way, only fools try to argue against evolution by referring to the extremely few frauds, or even errors that there have been. Since there are probably a thousand religious fraud for every scientific one that makes your religion one thousand times more likely to be false than evolution. When you live in not only a house that is glass, but surrounded by glass furniture, art, and even food, you should not throw stones.
Nebraska man was a simple mistake by a man who had very little education in biology. It was quickly found to be a pig's tooth and was never accepted by scientists. It was accepted by the private press which is why you always go to scientists first for scientific questions.
Piltdown man was a fraud and it fooled quite a few people, but again since it made no sense it was not widely accepted and was not part of the theory of evolution.
Your using these two examples is a much worse crime than me pointing to Jim Jones and the Waco nut and using those to attack Christianity. And those are only two of the whackos created by your side.
.
<quoted text>
By the way, only fools try to argue against evolution by referring to the extremely few frauds, or even errors that there have been.
.
I agree, the reference wasn't to disprove evolution, it was to show the hypocrisy of those claiming a religious fraud would disprove a bonafide artefact.
.
<quoted text>
Since there are probably a thousand religious fraud for every scientific one that makes your religion one thousand times more likely to be false than evolution.
.
I don't suppose you have any evidence for this do you? Can you cite a study?
.
<quoted text>
When you live in not only a house that is glass, but surrounded by glass furniture, art, and even food, you should not throw stones.
.
I would think you would direct this to the one who made the first mention of fraud, which I believe was you.
.
Regarding Piltdown man in school curriculum
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/the-piltdown-...
.
I was taught about Piltdown man as late as the mid 60's in public schools. It seems the scientific community is lax in their responsibility to correct past mistakes. We are talking 40 years minimum. It says even less for teachers of whom you are probably parroting.
.
Addionally:
the science journal New Scientist recently reported the following regarding the fossil which was dubbed "flipperpithecus":
"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." - Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199[23]
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118395 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
You didn't show me anything like that.
I see you've resorted to lying again.
messianic114 wrote:
Part of the scientific method is testability. Can you cite a test that proves that evolution (meaning change from one kind to another - macro-evolution) occurs. We already know change within a kind can occur like dogs changing size and appearance, but we still have a dog.
Why yes I can:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

So far you've not been able to refute it. Not surprising really considering you don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. As evolution has been passing tests for 150 years. It's WHY Darwin got famous in the first place.
messianic114 wrote:
You may even convince me there can be a change within families, ie a something to the foxes, dogs, wolves etc.
I can't convince you of anything, but it doesn't matter. Your ignorance is something you treasure, so that's not my problem. All I need to do is demonstrate my position. I can. And it stays that way until you can refute it. You can't.

But don't worry, neither can anyone else on the entire planet.

That's not because I'm super-smart. But rather it's because those who reject evolution are super-dumb. And some of them have PhD's.(not many though, comparatively speaking)
messianic114 wrote:
For evolution to be true we have to go beyond these limits to a different family. If all life came from one organism, which branched off to others, at some time a change of this magnitude must have occurred. We don't have an observation of this, we don't have fossil evidence of this and we don't have the fossil evidence of the millions of intermediate forms which would be anticipated by evolution.
Then just give one fossil which is out of place.
messianic114 wrote:
What we have is an assumption that, since change can occur, given enough time (which there isn't) anything is possible biologically speaking.
False. If ANYTHING was possible then CREATIONISM would be true. However evolution has VERY SPECIFIC limits, which is WHY we can tell it's correct in the first place.
messianic114 wrote:
Provide a model which predicts how long it takes for one sequence in the DNA to change and then multiply it by the millions of changes needed for an ape to evolve into a man and lets see if that is possible. Be sure there is some testing to go along with this so we aren't making assumptions so it can be possible.
.
That seems like good science to me, how about you? Is this an unreasonable request?
No problem. Address the linky above. You can do the math yourself if you want. It's not hard.

By the way, humans ARE apes. What is NEEDED is a demonstration of DNA change and how it matches up compared with other species, both in fossil anatomy and genetic drift. The above linky explains that. But again, your position on evidence is that you don't care. So why ask? Especially when it's been provided before?

In short, why are creationists such monumentally massive lying hypocrites?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#118396 Jul 17, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, there were several countries mention in the two articles you posted. South Africa, China, the US and others. I did read them, jackass.
Now are you too lazy to back up anything your posted? I even invited you to pick one but you are apparently too lazy to do even that.
.
Then you need to improve your comprehension skills as the article stated this was reported by the Russian news source Komsomolskaya Pravda.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#118397 Jul 17, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares what you assume?(shrug)
Any time you wish to stop showing yourself to be a hypocrite, just say so. Until then I don't have to consider your BS to be valid until you can demonstrate it.
.
Ditto
1 post removed
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118399 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
Since there are probably a thousand religious fraud for every scientific one that makes your religion one thousand times more likely to be false than evolution.
.
I don't suppose you have any evidence for this do you? Can you cite a study?
Yup - EVERY magic claim in the Bible.

Just prove one.
messianic114 wrote:
Regarding Piltdown man in school curriculum
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/the-piltdown-...
It's unknown how long Piltdown was taught in public schools therefore it was taught in public schools? They didn't even mention which books, which schools, or provide evidence of it.
messianic114 wrote:
I was taught about Piltdown man as late as the mid 60's in public schools. It seems the scientific community is lax in their responsibility to correct past mistakes. We are talking 40 years minimum. It says even less for teachers of whom you are probably parroting.
Funny, since the scientific community falsified it in about 1953. But hey, don't let that stop you from making baseless accusations straight after lying.(shrug)

Again.
messianic114 wrote:
Addionally:
the science journal New Scientist recently reported the following regarding the fossil which was dubbed "flipperpithecus":
"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." - Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199[23]
So you're saying the very same scientists using science you reject found out there was something wrong and corrected it? It would be a miracle of Biblical proportions if creationists ever tried anything like that!
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118400 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Then you need to improve your comprehension skills as the article stated this was reported by the Russian news source Komsomolskaya Pravda.
Atheist, you say?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118401 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Ditto
Yet I have. So far no rebuttal.

(sound of crickets chirping)
1 post removed

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118403 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Then you need to improve your comprehension skills as the article stated this was reported by the Russian news source Komsomolskaya Pravda.
As I said, there were several countries mention in the two articles. Sorry if I'm not able to read your friggin mind as to which one you were referring to. Perhaps if you simply answered the question instead of being a total dick, we could have save some time.

What does it being reported by Pravda have to do with anything, anyway?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#118404 Jul 17, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you've resorted to lying again.
<quoted text>
Why yes I can:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
So far you've not been able to refute it. Not surprising really considering you don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. As evolution has been passing tests for 150 years. It's WHY Darwin got famous in the first place.
<quoted text>
I can't convince you of anything, but it doesn't matter. Your ignorance is something you treasure, so that's not my problem. All I need to do is demonstrate my position. I can. And it stays that way until you can refute it. You can't.
But don't worry, neither can anyone else on the entire planet.
That's not because I'm super-smart. But rather it's because those who reject evolution are super-dumb. And some of them have PhD's.(not many though, comparatively speaking)
<quoted text>
Then just give one fossil which is out of place.
<quoted text>
False. If ANYTHING was possible then CREATIONISM would be true. However evolution has VERY SPECIFIC limits, which is WHY we can tell it's correct in the first place.
<quoted text>
No problem. Address the linky above. You can do the math yourself if you want. It's not hard.
By the way, humans ARE apes. What is NEEDED is a demonstration of DNA change and how it matches up compared with other species, both in fossil anatomy and genetic drift. The above linky explains that. But again, your position on evidence is that you don't care. So why ask? Especially when it's been provided before?
In short, why are creationists such monumentally massive lying hypocrites?
.
<quoted text>
Why yes I can:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
.
This is obviously flawed. For our common ancestor to be 6 millions years ago would require 12 million changes (from a modern ape) in 6 million years. Are we seeing anything like that occurring? NO we aren't. Since you can't produce the genome of that ancestor, on what basis can we say that any change has occurred? You may say that we were closer to the ancestor than a modern ape, so how many changes needed to occur?! million? We still aren't even close to observing that rapid a change.
.
Part of the scientific method is predictability. For this to be true (unless you dispute the gene sequences) would be 1 change every 6 months and at that we would have to assume the rate isn't changing. If anything I would say the rate of change is increasing.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118405 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Then you need to improve your comprehension skills as the article stated this was reported by the Russian news source Komsomolskaya Pravda.
I found no reference to Pravda in
http://ancientx.com/nm/anmviewer.asp...
or that Chapman PDF..

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) 4 min Lamamba Soetoro 1,786,054
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 5 min Quivering Lip Lib... 88,685
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 min Chicagoan by Birth 243,619
News Nearly 70 children being taken from families at... 9 min Sandra 343
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 10 min Chicagoan by Birth 346,479
News Trump calls for depriving immigrants who illega... 22 min RIP 29
News Trump's land of delusion 23 min fish and poi 1,016
News Melania Trump says US should govern - with hear... 1 hr fish and poi 669