Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223366 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: Dec 08

Location hidden

#119595 Aug 5, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what it could mean to say that something creates itself. But the likelihood is that the universe is uncaused. But we do not *know* that because we simply don't have any solid evidence about the matter.
Now, why do you think this would be a 'simple' question? it is old for a reason: there isn't enough evidence to decide the question.
I love your word games! Oh it didn't create itself, its uncaused! Ha,Ha, Uncaused ? the only reason you choose such an imbecilic notion is that you are afraid of the other answer. You are to smart for such an evasion, if the universe didn't have a creator, then IT DID create itself and all life. That is obvious .

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#119596 Aug 5, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You're lying, since we answered it for you YEARS back.
Nobody knows the specifics of how it started yet. But this has ZERO bearing on the validity of evolution. It doesn't even have any relevance to abiogenesis. In fact it doesn't even have any relevance to this entire FORUM.
But you fundies can't help dodging and moving the goalposts WAY back, can ya.
Your denial is your answer, it portrays your fear . To acknowledge that the universe has a creator is something you cannot do, it violates your belief system. To say that the universe created itself and all life is illogical , unreasonable, unscientific, and frankly stupid. So this leaves you and your ilk in the murky nebula of refusing to answer, using word games like uncaused , or accusations of lying
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#119597 Aug 5, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
You sir, have issues. I suggest you deal with them asap.
Do you have anything you're passionate about?
Do you have an imagination or are you dead inside?
Are you wondering's buddy?
Your avatar is a hybrid and wondering is all over hybrids
right now.
Best ye be chaste and discreet, in every way a proper lady,
lest ye catch the eye of the indiscreet, for every attention of such
is a stain upon thy lovely countenance.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119598 Aug 5, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Your denial is your answer, it portrays your fear . To acknowledge that the universe has a creator is something you cannot do, it violates your belief system. To say that the universe created itself and all life is illogical , unreasonable, unscientific, and frankly stupid. So this leaves you and your ilk in the murky nebula of refusing to answer, using word games like uncaused , or accusations of lying
And yet all of the scientific evidence supports us and not you.

How do you explain that?
wondering

Morris, OK

#119599 Aug 6, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet all of the scientific evidence supports us and not you.
How do you explain that?
to make this short,,,, how many ways and in what ways has science tested for a god, any god? does science even know how to test for a god? when you answer those three little simple questions we will go from there.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119600 Aug 6, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Your denial is your answer, it portrays your fear . To acknowledge that the universe has a creator is something you cannot do, it violates your belief system. To say that the universe created itself and all life is illogical , unreasonable, unscientific, and frankly stupid. So this leaves you and your ilk in the murky nebula of refusing to answer, using word games like uncaused , or accusations of lying
You are not addressing what Dude said.
Please answer his point or else leave away your post.
He was talking about evolution and abiogenesis and cosmology to be different realms and that you can't address evolution by alleged problems in abiogenesis.
Your answer is COMPLETELY out of order.
It is COMPLETELY non sequitur.
It is entirely futile.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119601 Aug 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
to make this short,,,, how many ways and in what ways has science tested for a god, any god? does science even know how to test for a god? when you answer those three little simple questions we will go from there.
Ridiculous question.
Again not addressing the point made.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119602 Aug 6, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ridiculous question.
Again not addressing the point made.
the point is that the evidence supports evolution and not god. so the question stands. since you stepped in now you can answer.. we all know the test for evolution so again,,, how many ways and in what ways has science tested for a god, any god? does science even know how to test for a god? when you answer those three little simple questions we will go from there.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119603 Aug 6, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not addressing what Dude said.
Please answer his point or else leave away your post.
He was talking about evolution and abiogenesis and cosmology to be different realms and that you can't address evolution by alleged problems in abiogenesis.
Your answer is COMPLETELY out of order.
It is COMPLETELY non sequitur.
It is entirely futile.
who the heII are you to tell anyone to answer a point or question! i have seen in just the last few days you duck and dodge at least two dozen questions. practice what you preach or STFU. you always want answers but never give any, you always want links but never give any. all you do is rattle the tattle. go find another link and make 20 questions trying to look smart as you did with the grand canyon and i will bust it just like i did with your stupid grand canyon questions. better yet go talk to kab about the flud and stop wasting our time with your pure bs nonsense. go get some cheese to go with your whine.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#119604 Aug 6, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
The proof is that you exist.¼ million years ago homo sapiens didn’t exist
.
This could be used to prove creation also. Would you accept that as proof?
.
Equating micro evolution with macro evolution is using the same logic as this:
.
We can teach a monkey to say a few words so given enough time a monkey can become a world class orator.
.
Mankind finally broke the 4 minute mile. Given enough time we can break the 3 minute mile, then the 2 minute mile, then the 1 minute mile, then.......
.
Another point is that we have been breeding animals for thousands of years, not by random chance but by intelligent design and we have been unable to:
1. Produce a different kind.
2. Not increased the speed noticeably 2:08 in 1896 to 2:03 in 2014 of Kentucky Derby winners.(Most likely to safety concerns/track conditions)
3. Breeding Pigs/cattle has not been able to significantly increase size.
I would consider the evidence and unlike so many trusting creationists I have examined some of the vast amounts of complimentary evidence myself and learned that humanity evolved from earlier primates, god dunitwiv magic was not a factor. This evolution is happening today (see my avatar, the Langkawi bent-toed gecko and the Pygmy three-toed sloth for examples)

Tell me, are you Buck Crick in another sock? You are providing definite buckisms to make your point, and like buck your buckisms are irrelevant. Comparing say Wahsoe to say Cicero is really quite a sad testament of your understanding. Separating macro and micro evolution is using no logic whatsoever, there are the same thing, only the hard of thinking consider that A*A does not equal A^2. Personally I will take the word of scientists, bio;ogist and geneticists who actually work in the field rather than creationists who have an agenda to poopoo evidential facts because they contradict bronze age camp fire stories.

Roger Banister broke the 4 minute mile, science, nutrition and training will no doubt improve on the current record however there are limits to the human body and what it is capable of - dependant on the speed at which muscles can move, the interaction of muscle fibres and the speed the brain can process information and have that information acted on by the muscles. Notwithstanding the pressure such high speed places on the foot.

What has selective breeding god to do with nature? What has man “selective” efforts over a few thousand years got to do with nature’s efforts over hundreds of thousands/millions/billions of years? Or is it a case of the monkey p|ssing into the stream and saying every bit helps

1/ What is your definition of kind?

2/ See the Roger Banister paragraph above

3/ Yes it has to an extent but was additional size the target or was more food the target, the average farmed pig today produces about twice as much meat as its forebears 200 years ago ( Genetics.org , 1999).”Cows of today are also able to produce more milk and have decreased their carbon footprint by 41 percent per kilogram of milk produced”(Capper et al., 2009).“The beef industry has also reduced their use of resources by using 69.9 percent of beef cattle, 81.4 percent of feedstuffs, 87.9 percent of water and only 67 percent of the land required to produce one billion kilograms of beef from 1977 to 2007”(Capper, 2011)

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#119605 Aug 6, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
It is your fear that is apparent ,its a simple question , what do you believe? Did the universe have a creator or did it create itself?
What fear? Oh I get it, you are a godbot and scared shItless that you may be wrong and hence spend eternity rotting in a grave rather than living it up with your buddies in imaginary dream of heaven?

There ya go butt brain, just to let you know that when someone abuses me then I abuse them tight back

It is not a simple questions otherwise even a simple moron like you would have a definitive answer.

There are many reasons why it is not a simple question, most are too difficult for you to comprehend, including the biggest of all... the laws that govern this universe and hence your ability to think did not exist at that moment in time.

However there is no scientific reason why it did not create itself.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119606 Aug 6, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>We know according to scripture that the God of the Bible gives commands and that he shows patterns and he does say for things to be after their own kind. Just sayin....
Still don't care Mikey.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119607 Aug 6, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
He has already stated this aren't you keeping up?
We know you ain't.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119608 Aug 6, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
.
<quoted text>
The proof is that you exist.¼ million years ago homo sapiens didn’t exist
.
This could be used to prove creation also. Would you accept that as proof?
Nope. Because you can call anything "evidence" of creation. Because it doesn't matter WHAT the evidence looks like, you can just say Goddidit.

On the other hand this kind of thing is PRECISELY what we'd see with evolution:

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

Of course if we found modern hominid fossils when life started then evolution would be in SERIOUS trouble.

But it ain't.
messianic114 wrote:
Equating micro evolution with macro evolution is using the same logic as this:
.
We can teach a monkey to say a few words so given enough time a monkey can become a world class orator.
.
Mankind finally broke the 4 minute mile. Given enough time we can break the 3 minute mile, then the 2 minute mile, then the 1 minute mile, then.......
Actually that's a crap analogy. A more accurate one would be that if I take steps I can walk down the street. But if I take even more steps I can get across town. And if I keep going I could, eventually, get from one side of the country to the other.

But hey, don't let the fact that we've already demonstrated evolution for ya get in the way of you constructing another straw man and lying some more.(shrug)
messianic114 wrote:
Another point is that we have been breeding animals for thousands of years, not by random chance but by intelligent design and we have been unable to:
1. Produce a different kind.
2. Not increased the speed noticeably 2:08 in 1896 to 2:03 in 2014 of Kentucky Derby winners.(Most likely to safety concerns/track conditions)
3. Breeding Pigs/cattle has not been able to significantly increase size.
And your point is stupid because animal breeding involves restricting genetic variation in order to acheive specific desired traits. Evolution depends on variation, which is what we see. And so far not a single creationist on the planet has been able to refute it yet.

Wonder why that is.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119609 Aug 6, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
You said there was no evidence of baby genocide by Herod and you are factually incorrect. Like it or not, Matthew is evidence. Now you come back with this lame claim which is juvenile diversion. First off, the Bible is not a source, it is multiples sources compiled.Since it is multiple sources compiled then technically the compiled Bible can be compared with other sources in the Bible.
And the Egyptian book of the dead is not one source, it's multiple sources compiled. So since it is multiple sources compiled then technically it can be compared with other sources in the Book of the Dead.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Herod was not a very nice fellow. His understanding may have been the birth of a Jewish King who would lead a resistance movement to Roman rule. Liberation from Roman rule. <quoted text> Irrelevant.
<quoted text> Matthew says it happened. That directly refutes your claim above, no evidence (according to you) for an alleged baby genocide under Herod. It's right there is Matthew and Matthew is evidence.
Matty said it therefore it's true.

Boy, you're gullible.

Well Josephus said Jupiter, therefore the Roman pantheon is true.
lightbeamrider wrote:
I am not here to give you history lessons on Herod. Do your own homework. Besides, you have no ancient precedent for any of your assumptions.
Sure I do. Josephus said Jupiter existed (the God, not the planet that was named after it) therefore it's true. Plus it's not MY homework.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Well the ancients did not always cite their sources
That's NOT good news for you.
lightbeamrider wrote:
but they are given the benefit of the doubt.
Of course they are.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Unless they are hyper critics like you who assume guilt until proven innocent. By your standard of measure, may it be measured out to you.
You don't understand. I think they are INNOCENT. They claim to have demonstrated God, but the evidence is not enough for a conviction.
lightbeamrider wrote:
I think Josephus mentions Jesus twice. Josephus had sources which probable did not include the Gospels. All that adds weight to the existence of Jesus and His crucifixion via Pilate.
Except you have NO idea what his sources were. Which were apparently, other Christians.

The MOST you got here is someone called Jeshua (which was a common name at the time anyway), who may have been a rabble-rousing preacher, got executed. This probably happened to LOTS of Jeshuas over the centuries.

But that doesn't matter either. As far as I'm conerned you can HAVE your Jesus in real life, living out pretty much the story as relayed in the Bible.

Just not the magic bits, which is FAR more likely to be made up by the local supersticious ancients of the time. Because they heard a rumour, or they were involved with inventing the new Christian religion due to a theological and political agenda. Just like EVERY other religion.

NONE of this proves that invisible Jews are magic. ESPECIALLY when a number of their claims (spontaneous generation, talking lizards and donkeys and global floods) fly straight in the face of physics.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Doesn't matter, Josephus reported the events. It is evidence from history which jibe in parts with the Gospels which jibe with Tacitus. I may get to the rest later.
Tacitus is even worse since he came AFTER Josephus, the latter of which was born AFTER Jesus died. That's why there's no CONTEMPORARY accounts of Jesus who was allegedly running around all over the Middle East performing magic tricks.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119610 Aug 6, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I love your word games! Oh it didn't create itself, its uncaused! Ha,Ha, Uncaused ? the only reason you choose such an imbecilic notion is that you are afraid of the other answer. You are to smart for such an evasion, if the universe didn't have a creator, then IT DID create itself and all life. That is obvious .
In that case God created itself. Yet YOU claim it's uncaused.

Hence by your own rules, you have chosen an imbecilic notion because you're afraid of the other answer. That is obvious.(shrug)

By the way, none of this STILL has any bearing on the validity of evolution.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119611 Aug 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
never ignored it. in fact i think i posted the link that said that. the fact is that would show evolution of a new species in about 80 years which goes completely against the theory of evolution. "evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". 80 years is not sufficient time to do that according to TOE.
The ToE does not prohibit a new species of goatsbeard over the course of 80 years. You proposed a dare that emergence of a new species has not been observed. Failing that, you attempt to discredit the example, but your protest is moot since 1) there IS a new species of goatsbeard and 2) there are always other examples - isolated populations of mice, cichlid fishes, insects, other plants,.... You don't wish to accept that the ToE is built on credible evidence, but I'd bet you believe Jesus walked on water.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119612 Aug 6, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
The proof is that you exist.¼ million years ago homo sapiens didn’t exist.
This could be used to prove creation also. Would you accept that as proof?
No it isn't.
Because it not only applies to homo Sapiens but also to all other species.
This the palaeontological evidence of the coming and going of species in the time line of life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evol... .

This is the (rather truncated) record of evolution.
And this record is in all respects telling the story of common descent (evolution).
The world was not only once void of humans. If you descend deeper into the fossil record, the world also once was void of mammals. And going back deeper, void of reptiles. Going deeper, void of land animals altogether. There once even were no fish swimming the oceans. And there were eras when there even was no multicellular life around.

It clearly shows that life developed from single cellular life which earliest evidence dates back 3.6 billion years ago. The stratification of the fossil record alone leaves no other conclusion.
The mechanisms that explain this development are known, studied continually and backed by abundant empirical evidence in several realms: embryology, genetics, biogeography, biochemistry, fossil record, comparative anatomy, observed natural selection, observed speciation and artificial selection. And all these different lines of evidence mutually endorse each other.

If you are able to reconcile creation with the biological reality of evolution, we may talk.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Equating micro evolution with macro evolution is using the same logic as this:
We can teach a monkey to say a few words so given enough time a monkey can become a world class orator.
Micro evolution is a change in the phenotype of the sub-population of a species due to an accumulation of tiny genetic changes over many generations. But those changes are not affecting the ability of members of that sub-population to interbreed successfully with members of the other sub-population(s) of that species.

Macro evolution is also the very same change change in the phenotype of the sub-population of a species due to an accumulation of tiny genetic changes over many generations. But those changes did accumulate beyond the boundary where members of that sub-population can interbreed successfully with members of the other sub-population(s) of that species. Because the genetic differences accumulated added up were exceeding the boundary where the two genomes of both sub-populations weren't compatible any more.

In other words, micro- and macro-evolution are EXACTLY the same and both driven by the very same mechanisms. The ONLY difference is TIME. Macro-evolution is micro-evolution on a larger time scale.

That is how biology conceives it.

As a matter of fact, I don't care about your layman's assessments about micro- and macro-evolution. It is just plain tattle by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119613 Aug 6, 2014
bohart wrote:
Your denial is your answer, it portrays your fear
Irony meter go boom.
bohart wrote:
To acknowledge that the universe has a creator is something you cannot do, it violates your belief system.
I don't hold to any belief system, in the religious sense. I simply do not acknowledge the existence of something which has no evidence. Just like I don't have to acknowledge the existence of fairies.

I am open to the possibility of some kind of creator, if such a thing even exists. All you need to do is present evidence. But I have no reason to fear it even if it did exist, for the odds of it resembling anything at all like your particular favourite deity are rather slim to say the least.
bohart wrote:
To say that the universe created itself
We have not made that claim. We have said it might have had a cause which was not a deity, or that it was uncaused. An option you outright REFUSE to consider unless it applies only to your deity. Which is the height of hypocrisy to say the least.
bohart wrote:
and all life is illogical , unreasonable, unscientific, and frankly stupid.
But let's face it Bo, you of all people are unqualified to judge.(shrug)

I mean look at yourself. This is an evolution forum. Which is biology. You came along and couldn't argue against that so you moved the goalposts back to abiogenesis. Then you found you couldn't argue against that either, so now you're moving the goalposts back to the very very start of the universe. That's a cosmology problem. And the funny part is that you call US cowards.
bohart wrote:
So this leaves you and your ilk in the murky nebula of refusing to answer, using word games like uncaused , or accusations of lying
Word games is what creationists do. We use words that have meaninful definitions, which you don't understand because you aren't interested to learn. And we DO provide answers which you simply ignore instead of address. Then all we do is point out that you DO lie, just like you did right now.

So stop whining just because you wanna join Wondering in the ranks of being a sad whiny beeyach.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119614 Aug 6, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I love your word games! Oh it didn't create itself, its uncaused! Ha,Ha, Uncaused ? the only reason you choose such an imbecilic notion is that you are afraid of the other answer. You are to smart for such an evasion, if the universe didn't have a creator, then IT DID create itself and all life. That is obvious .
It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that there is no causality without or "before" time. It is not at all obvious or evidenced that the universe and "all life" are inextricably linked in the mystical way you seem to believe.

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 Comey speculates Russians may have damaging inf... 2 min Retribution 479
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 4 min Rednek 71,851
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 5 min cpeter1313 336,835
News Ted Nugent says Parkland survivors are 'mushy b... 6 min Let Freedom Ring 605
News Police shootings of unarmed black people have n... 12 min Concerned 102
News Pompeo facing rare opposition from Senate panel 13 min ardith 12
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 15 min JCPete 1,745,669
News 'Get on the Right Side': Shooting Survivors Dec... 36 min it is obvious 1,446
News James Clapper insisted Trump receive prostitute... 2 hr Lawrence Wolf 50