Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223191 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.

KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#120072 Aug 13, 2014
OOOOhhh IT's Hot n' Heavy on the evolution debate!
Sorry for dubl post.
carry on ;-)
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120073 Aug 13, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You are really chicken shit, a coward who's afraid to answer
What are you talking about?
I respond to posts, YOU don't.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#120074 Aug 13, 2014
KeepCalmNcarryON wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been reading abut abiogenisis and I get most of it - Y'all better get ready for some hardcore biochemistry, astrobiology, theoretical astrophysics AND astronomy.
We're sending telescopes and probes into space right now to try to answer the questions of where and how life came to be here and out there.../\
We have probes that fly next to comets, probes around the outer planets and their icy water laden moons, yet as far as I know..... no touchdown(contact) of any space vehicle or probe but the one landed on titan some time ago. No reports of life there, Organic compounds,
liquid and frozen methane on its surface. When are we gonna land on one of the ice moons?
What are all the ruddy dirty stains in the white ice of Europa? Looks kinda of familiar.
What are we stalling about when we've got at least two probes looking at those moons now?
Yes I know, Funding.(money)
It's definitely a hedge fund to mankinds' good continuance and prosperity to do this and more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L ist_of_landings_on_extraterres trial_bodies
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#120075 Aug 13, 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landings on extraterrestrial bodies
That is SO Cool, thank you!
That did verify that there have been no landings or impacts on any of the moons round Jupiter, Saturn or Neptune besides the Huygens Probe landing on Titan.
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#120076 Aug 13, 2014
The atmosphere of Titan is largely nitrogen; minor components lead to the formation of methane and ethane clouds and nitrogen-rich organic smog. The climate—including wind and rain—creates surface features similar to those of Earth, such as dunes, rivers, lakes, seas (probably of liquid methane and ethane), and deltas, and is dominated by seasonal weather patterns as on Earth. With its liquids (both surface and subsurface) and robust nitrogen atmosphere, Titan's methane cycle is viewed as an analogy to Earth's water cycle, although at a much lower temperature. On June 23, 2014, NASA announced strong evidence that nitrogen in the atmosphere of Titan came from materials in the Oort cloud, associated with comets, and not from the materials that formed Saturn earlier. On July 2, 2014, NASA reported the ocean inside Titan may be "as salty as the Earth's Dead Sea".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_ (moon)

The ocean INSIDE Titan?
:-O, learn something new every day.
1 post removed

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#120078 Aug 13, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Really if the facts and doctrine contradict off goes the doctrine? Stephen J Gould realized the fossil record ,,,DID NOT support the current theory of gradual change over time . Did he jettison the doctrine ? no! He simply said it must have happened quickly then,..Why? because its what he wants to believe
Polls? no I don't pay any attention to polls, unlike you I think
You don't know the theory of evolution or of punctuated equilibrium. Why do you persist on showing how limited and ignorant you are. What makes you so hateful and angry if you are such a great Christian?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120079 Aug 14, 2014
KeepCalmNcarryON wrote:
The atmosphere of Titan is largely nitrogen; minor components lead to the formation of methane and ethane clouds and nitrogen-rich organic smog. The climate—including wind and rain—creates surface features similar to those of Earth, such as dunes, rivers, lakes, seas (probably of liquid methane and ethane), and deltas, and is dominated by seasonal weather patterns as on Earth. With its liquids (both surface and subsurface) and robust nitrogen atmosphere, Titan's methane cycle is viewed as an analogy to Earth's water cycle, although at a much lower temperature. On June 23, 2014, NASA announced strong evidence that nitrogen in the atmosphere of Titan came from materials in the Oort cloud, associated with comets, and not from the materials that formed Saturn earlier. On July 2, 2014, NASA reported the ocean inside Titan may be "as salty as the Earth's Dead Sea".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_ (moon)
The ocean INSIDE Titan?
:-O, learn something new every day.
Titan's mantle consist of frozen ice in different crystal states. Beneath it there is a liquid form of water, mixed up with ammonia. The ice is drifting on the deeper oceans.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120080 Aug 14, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Really if the facts and doctrine contradict off goes the doctrine? Stephen J Gould realized the fossil record ,,,DID NOT support the current theory of gradual change over time . Did he jettison the doctrine ? no! He simply said it must have happened quickly then,..Why? because its what he wants to believe
Polls? no I don't pay any attention to polls, unlike you I think
The very next TATTLE.
Oi oi oi, DID NOT support the current theory. WOW! All evolutionist tremble of sheer anxiety.

Now stick back your ignorant head into the bronze age mythology book and don't annoy us with this crap about things you don't understand, plucked from your cults website full of deceit and further ignorance.

I shall substitute this terrible claptrap by another instance of innovation in science: Einstein constructing a new concept of gravity. Did Einstein jettisoned Newton on gravity?
Why should he. Well here it goes:

"Really if the facts and doctrine contradict off goes the doctrine? Albert Einstein realized several celestial bodies ,,,DID NOT support the current Newtonian theory of gravity. Did he jettison the doctrine ? no! He simply said it must have happened according to general relativity then,..Why? because its what he wants to believe".

So let's analyse your deceit and humbug.
"He simply said..." simply? After a decade of study?
"... it must have happened quickly then,.." No he didn't say so.
"Why? because its what he wants to believe" No he and Eldredge based their new ideas on meticulous study of the fossil record, pulmonate gastropods and phacopsid trilobites to be precise. The discussion of actual paleontological evidence consumes a significant proportion of their initial 1977 publication.

Little tiny secret: gradual change over time still stands. And Gould and Eldredge agree.

And now the polls thing. So you don't pay any attention to polls, unlike me, you think?
Well tell us then, where did you get YOUR information from when you FALSELY asserted that among the mentioned disciplines of science there are ever more ones who support creation?
TELL US.

As said before: you don't care about facts.
THAT we know from creationists.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120081 Aug 14, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay dumbass, empty your drool bucket,...the chemistry of EXISTING life is understood. Only the comically stupid goobers on this thread will tell you that the chemicals that the universe somehow created then coalesced and created life. That's you
There is zero evidence that inorganic matter,...nonliving, can self organize and create life.
Zero! so it is you who are the fool,
now go play in the road
Sure there is. It's just you do this whole denial thing every time somebody on here points it out.

By the way, the theory of evolution still doesn't rely on abiogenesis.

And abiogenesis is still not atheism.

What you really want is to be in the atheism forum, because that's what your real beef is:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120082 Aug 14, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I love God with all my heart and secondly I am as concerned for my neighbors as I am for myself. I'll keep praying for you guys.
Whatever makes ya happy.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120083 Aug 14, 2014
bohart wrote:
the first part is correct , the second is not
Bub, let's face it, you don't reall have the ability to tell right from wrong.
bohart wrote:
You think that there's no bearing on whether God created everything or everything created itself? Really! There's no bearing on society, science or mankind?
You mean beyond religion being a socio-cultural-political construct? Absolutely no bearing at all whatsoever, as far as can be determined. I mean it WOULD, if you could demonstrate your deity exists. But since you can't the effects of religion are similar to that of astrology (though the latter to a somewhat lesser extent).
bohart wrote:
The evidence of a creator is ....self evident
Ah, "self-evident" - the last vestige of the fundie who knows he has nothing.

If it really WAS as evident as you claim you would be able to provide evidence. I would say gravity is self-evident, but on the other hand we can provide evidence. Something like evolution however is not so much self-evident, but on the other hand we can still provide evidence. Just like infra-red or microscopic stuff is not self-evident, yet we can provide evidence of that also.

So all you need to do Bo, is present objectively verifiable evidence.
bohart wrote:
intelligent people and scientists for hundreds of years have known it, because the alternative is.......
the universe created itself, and no rational ,thinking and reasoning being could believe that.
Or other alternatives are that the universe has a cause which wasn't necessarily intelligent. Or that the universe was uncaused. Which you have no right to have a beef with consider the fact you claim your God was also uncaused. And this is why your arguments are not only totally lacking in evidence, they are stupendously flawed, and rife with hypocrisy. Which is why you constantly resort to dishonesty by avoiding our arguments and beating up straw-men.

The existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of the universe. It's not evidence of the universe AND invisible magic Jewish wizards. That is why we reject your logical fallacy of "If not A then it must be B!"

That doesn't mean there's definitely no evidence of a 'god'(whatever that means) or that there cannot ever be any, it's just that you've presented diddly. Feel free to provide something of substance for once. Any time you like.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120084 Aug 14, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Get that syphilis monkey back into his cage, he's on the keyboard again
Thanks again for not attempting to back yourself up.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120085 Aug 14, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Really if the facts and doctrine contradict off goes the doctrine? Stephen J Gould realized the fossil record ,,,DID NOT support the current theory of gradual change over time . Did he jettison the doctrine ? no! He simply said it must have happened quickly then,..Why? because its what he wants to believe
Polls? no I don't pay any attention to polls, unlike you I think
You leave out a significant aspect of Gould's work: he actually collected the *evidence* of fast change in a few species where he could determine, from the fossil record, the shorter time periods involved for those fast changes. So he did not simply *say* that the changes happened quickly, he provided the *evidence* that some particular changes happened quickly.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120086 Aug 14, 2014
bohart wrote:
because its You who are lying, there is zero evidence , none! giving you the benefit of the doubt that all the proteins, phosphates organic compounds, sugar all the so called building blocks come together you know what you have? lifeless matter that will begin to decay. Biogenesis states that life can only come from existing , it never has been seen to come from anywhere else, ever! That is a biological law , never refuted. To claim that life happened on its on once is in the eyes of science a miracle , since experimentation , evidence and history is against it., it is as I said pseudo science.....only your belief keeps it alive
You're lying about Pasteur's law again. You're also lying about you not being refuted. It was referring to the spontaneous appearance of fully-formed organisms, such as maggots that appeared in a dead carcass, as people back then didn't consider that all that happened was flies laid eggs in it. It mentioned NOTHING about the gradual development of life via natural chemical processes, something which happens every single day all over the planet.

In other words, Pasteur presented a falsification of creationism.

So just to remind you AGAIN - EVERYTHING in your body is made up of what was once previously "dead" non-living chemicals. Carbon is not alive. Iron is not alive. Calcium is not alive.

They came together via natural chemical processes. Ergo life came from non-life.

You always ignore the fact that the hypothesis of abiogenesis is the only origin of life idea which made successful scientific predictions, such as the building blocks of life being able to form naturally, and the earliest records of biology in the geological record are biochemistry followed by microscopic protocells, before they developed further in accordance to evolution. Ergo life came from non-life.

Both the Earth and the universe are finite. There is no evidence of life prior to 3.8 billion years ago. No evidence of anything "beyond" our universe as of yet, nor evidence that "life" could deliberately intervene in our universe even if there was something there. In short, there's no evidence life COULD exist prior to those points because there's no evidence of any environments being able to sustain any kind of life in the first place.

All lifeforms are carbon-based organisms based on organic chemistry. God is claimed to be an invisible magic spirit. There's no evidence of this.

All lifeforms are subject to entropy. God is claimed to be a magic immortal. There's no evidence of this.

All intelligent organisms require a brain or collection of neurons as an equivalent for any kind of intelligence processes to function. God is claimed to be an invisible magic spirit that doesn't need brains. There's no evidence of this.

When we go to heaven we have to be dead. God is claimed to be a "living spirit". There's no evidence of any of this. Plus this is a SERIOUS inconsistency in creationist theology that's never been addressed and must be ignored for theological convenience.

All organisms reproduce via natural chemical processes. God is claimed to have made man artificially. So your "life from life" chain is broken. Plus there's no evidence of any of this.

Notice how it's YOUR position which requires all sorts of exceptions to physics or current observations, and ours require NONE.

By the way, the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120087 Aug 14, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Really if the facts and doctrine contradict off goes the doctrine? Stephen J Gould realized the fossil record ,,,DID NOT support the current theory of gradual change over time . Did he jettison the doctrine ? no! He simply said it must have happened quickly then,..Why? because its what he wants to believe
Polls? no I don't pay any attention to polls, unlike you I think
so if Gould said there was no transitionals then how come Gould DID say there were transitionals? And plus how come that SINCE then, fossils demonstrating gradual change HAVE been discovered, AND we have presented this fact to you, along with a whole host of other evidence, which STILL hasn't been refuted?

Hm?
FREE SERVANT

Bronx, NY

#120088 Aug 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever makes ya happy.(shrug)
Oh, it's not about being happy. A lot of times I have to bite my tongue until it hurts. We Christians are not guaranteed happiness here in this world. As a matter of fact if we hold true to the faith we will be hated by some people.
1 post removed
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120090 Aug 14, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
The very next TATTLE.
Oi oi oi, DID NOT support the current theory. WOW! All evolutionist tremble of sheer anxiety.
Now stick back your ignorant head into the bronze age mythology book and don't annoy us with this crap about things you don't understand, plucked from your cults website full of deceit and further ignorance.
I shall substitute this terrible claptrap by another instance of innovation in science: Einstein constructing a new concept of gravity. Did Einstein jettisoned Newton on gravity?
Why should he. Well here it goes:
"Really if the facts and doctrine contradict off goes the doctrine? Albert Einstein realized several celestial bodies ,,,DID NOT support the current Newtonian theory of gravity. Did he jettison the doctrine ? no! He simply said it must have happened according to general relativity then,..Why? because its what he wants to believe".
So let's analyse your deceit and humbug.
"He simply said..." simply? After a decade of study?
"... it must have happened quickly then,.." No he didn't say so.
"Why? because its what he wants to believe" No he and Eldredge based their new ideas on meticulous study of the fossil record, pulmonate gastropods and phacopsid trilobites to be precise. The discussion of actual paleontological evidence consumes a significant proportion of their initial 1977 publication.
Little tiny secret: gradual change over time still stands. And Gould and Eldredge agree.
And now the polls thing. So you don't pay any attention to polls, unlike me, you think?
Well tell us then, where did you get YOUR information from when you FALSELY asserted that among the mentioned disciplines of science there are ever more ones who support creation?
TELL US.
As said before: you don't care about facts.
THAT we know from creationists.
.
"Really if the facts and doctrine contradict off goes the doctrine? Albert Einstein realized several celestial bodies ,,,DID NOT support the current Newtonian theory of gravity. Did he jettison the doctrine ? no! He simply said it must have happened according to general relativity then,..Why? because its what he wants to believe".
.
I may be wrong but didn't Einstein show the math that supported his position and couldn't his theory be tested and verified by measurements?
.
This is true science as it follows the scientific method. What is being peddled as science today is opinions spoken by scientists. Such is the theory of evolution. Has it been observed (meaning a change from one kind to another), tested or measured? When can we expect a new kind (again not a minimal change in a creature) of animal (prediction)
.
Why is it scientists say that a man and a chimp came from a common ancestor 6 million years ago (400,000 generations) requiring possibly 90 million changes in the genome and in approx. 4 million generations of bacteria we seen hardly any change?
.
Am I incorrect in THINKING there should have been more of a change?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120091 Aug 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
so if Gould said there was no transitionals then how come Gould DID say there were transitionals? And plus how come that SINCE then, fossils demonstrating gradual change HAVE been discovered, AND we have presented this fact to you, along with a whole host of other evidence, which STILL hasn't been refuted?
Hm?
.
Why is it scientists say that a man and a chimp came from a common ancestor 6 million years ago (400,000 generations) requiring possibly 90 million changes in the genome and in approx. 4 million generations of bacteria we seen hardly any change?
.
Am I incorrect in THINKING there should have been more of a change? We haven't seen a transition in approx. 4 million generations. How am I supposed to believe given this rate of change that 3.5 billion years is enough for a bacterium to evolve into all life on earth. If we can agree that the changes in the bacterium are 100 in the 150 years then how long would it take to reach just the 90 million differences between a man and a chimp?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120092 Aug 14, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You leave out a significant aspect of Gould's work: he actually collected the *evidence* of fast change in a few species where he could determine, from the fossil record, the shorter time periods involved for those fast changes. So he did not simply *say* that the changes happened quickly, he provided the *evidence* that some particular changes happened quickly.
AND the theory of punctuated equilibria (PE) states that the instances of rapid evolution are exchanged by longer periods of what they call "stasis". In those periods of stasis there is little net evolutionary change or none at all. Gould and Eldredge take pains to explicitly point out that PE is an expansive theory, not an exclusive one, i.e. it ADDS to the concept of gradual change and does not intent to REPLACE it.

Since 1977 a lot of discussion ensued. One of the focal points was the stasis (equilibria) part. The "punctuated" part, the instances of rapid evolution, were less of a deal. Gould and Eldredge also showed that nothing in the ideas of Darwin himself contradicts theirs about PE. Darwin, for instance, was well aware of the Cambrian radiation.

Several biologists have pointed to a possible observation bias pertaining PE.
Dawkins, for instance mentions the emigration bias.
Mostly not the complete species' population changes, but rather a sub-population. The reason is environmental changes that trigger those speciation, tend to happen in a geographical confined area. We even see this today: global warming is happening but it affects certain regions more than others, even in the same continent.

If a sub-population is living in a region where changes happen in its habitat, it basically has 3 options: adapt, migrate or get extinct.

But when a sub-population migrates, it disappears from that particular geographical record and appears on another. In the geographical record of its old habitat, it appears to that NOT MUCH did happen. In the geographical record of its new habitat it appears to that SUDDENLY much happened (as migration is, palaeontologically spoken, a rather fast process).

Hence, when corrected for this bias, the stasis part has much more evolutionary activity than initially conceived by Gould and Eldredge. Also the punctuated part needed adjustment.

But PE has enriched modern evolutionary biology.
It explained and answered the problem of the Cambrian "explosion" Darwin himself discussed pertaining his concept of common descent. And this solution EXACTLY was found in the realm where Darwin thought it to be found: in his days the fossil record was only a tiny shell of what it is today and he thought that the problem could be solved by extending the fossil record.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120093 Aug 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
"Really if the facts and doctrine contradict off goes the doctrine? Albert Einstein realized several celestial bodies ,,,DID NOT support the current Newtonian theory of gravity. Did he jettison the doctrine ? no! He simply said it must have happened according to general relativity then,..Why? because its what he wants to believe".
.
I may be wrong but didn't Einstein show the math that supported his position and couldn't his theory be tested and verified by measurements?
.
This is true science as it follows the scientific method. What is being peddled as science today is opinions spoken by scientists. Such is the theory of evolution. Has it been observed (meaning a change from one kind to another), tested or measured? When can we expect a new kind (again not a minimal change in a creature) of animal (prediction)
.
Why is it scientists say that a man and a chimp came from a common ancestor 6 million years ago (400,000 generations) requiring possibly 90 million changes in the genome and in approx. 4 million generations of bacteria we seen hardly any change?
.
Am I incorrect in THINKING there should have been more of a change?
Why are you asking bullshit questions which have been addressed by posts you never bothered to address the first dozen times?

Why are you asking for evidence for which you have no interest in? Especially when evidence doesn't matter to your position anyway?

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 Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 2 min Riverside Rednek 46,759
News Jose Canseco on being molested by women: - It w... 3 min Lawrence Wolf 10
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Informist III 1,658,107
News How did Doug Jones win? Women and millennials p... 5 min Reymundo Mejia Gu... 19
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 9 min Frindly 14,802
News Trump should resign amid sexual assault claims:... 10 min Lawrence Wolf 46
News Blake Farenthold, Texas lawmaker accused in sex... 13 min Red Crosse 2
More from around the web