Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 168587 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

Birkenhead, UK

#37547 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical ranting of an atheist who has nothing intelligent to say. I've presented mountains of evidence against evolution, and you simply say, "no, that's not true" without providing any logical refutation, All you can do is paste links from atheist websites.
Then go back to the relevant post and I'll point out to you the relevant refutation.

You will also notice that I have never claimed to be an atheist, made no atheistic claims, and never made a positive case for atheism. Why? Because it's not necessary.

But then you think that any science you disagree with for theological reasons is "atheistic" anyway, despite the fact that science makes no theological claims.

Remember that every time you falsely accuse me of beating up a straw-man.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#37548 Aug 12, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not solved all the way? ha,ha,ha,ha,is there something wrong with your keyboard? do you see what you type?They already know the chemical ingredients, amino acids,enzymes, proteins, etc,etc,but they have one herculean problem, it won't come to life! And the Zero evidence stands as the truth, you are the one lying about how we're almost there, gawd what a liar, do you hold political office?
Your lack of scientific study is astounding still.

First, we can artificially create living cells from the chemicals, guided of course but it is possible.

Next, we have discovered proto-cells will appear spontaneously, we just haven't discovered the mechanism for which these proto-cells may gained the extra traits ... yet ...

The point of the matter is that no one really "knows." But scientists admit this openly and very often, religious people do not. You pretend to know, you lie and state you know how things more complex than you seem to comprehend happen in spite of having no evidence to support this. Science has evidence, yet still says "it's the most probable explanation," religion has no evidence yet states "this is how it happened and we know it."
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37549 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not presenting ID as a scientific theory. I'm debunking evolution. You're attempting to defend a "scientific theory" [evolution] by making philosophical judgements regarding ID.
Then ID/Creationism is utterly irrelevant for consideration. Until a valid reason is given otherwise it is from here on out pseudo-science, period.

So this debunking of evolution is gonna happen now any time right?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37550 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There are hundreds of examples of medicinal plants that benefit humans and not the plants. For example, the foxglove plant produces digitalis which has saved the lives of thousands of heart patients.
Edible roots benefit animals and are a detriment to plant survival and reproduction. These modifications cannot be explained by an proposed mechanisms of evolution.
Even if we pretend you're right for a second - this would not refute evolution, it would merely mean that evolution can't explain everything yet. What you have to keep in mind that for every plant we find of benefit there's lots more that have none, and a dozen more which can kill us. As evolution produces diversity you're not really presenting an obstacle here.

By the way, what "modifications"? ID is bunk, you just admitted it. Nothing has been deliberately modified. Your wording here was superfluous.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#37551 Aug 12, 2012
RU CRS wrote:
<quoted text>You think you know, but no body except God knew the full weight of giving man freedom and dominion over the earth, and what would have to be done if mankind disobeyed his word.
If you are going to preach, please read the bible first. Who has dominion over the earth?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37552 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it that atheists are incapable of engaging in a scientific debate without constantly bringing up their contempt for God?
You keep bringing it up. It wouldn't be a problem, but you keep ranting about "atheists" and calling any science you don't like "atheism".

Also for some of us it's not that we have contempt for God (presuming such a thing even exists), but we DO have contempt for injecting "God" as a placeholder for ignorance and promoting it.
RU CRS

Bellevue, WA

#37553 Aug 12, 2012
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are going to preach, please read the bible first. Who has dominion over the earth?
Adam was given dominion over it all.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37554 Aug 12, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Not so. Not even the scientific community makes any of the claims you just did. There are in fact, still insurmountable problems with the theory. The model for mutations resulting in viable species still remains nonexistent. There is no evidence whatsoever that mutations result in anything but a dead genetic line.
Every human born has around 125 to 175 mutations.

Humans have been here for hundreds of thousands of years. There is currently roughly 7 billion of them on the planet. The population is currently on the increase. People who suffer a reproductive disadvantage due to mutations are generally the exception, not the rule.

That's a WHOLE LOT of mutations there bub.

Notice how reality disagrees with you.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Nor does it explain the origin of life, which still remains firmly out of its grasp as a theory.
The origin of mass remains firmly out of the grasp of the theory of gravity. The origin of germs remains firmly out of the grasp of the theory of the germ theory of disease. Gravity, germ theory, and evolution all still work without requiring to explain their respective origins.

All evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to show that life is in fact NOT here. Good luck.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
The fossil records do not confirm it, after 150 years of looking very hard for a transitional species, none have been found.
And it cannot be reproduced in a lab. In fact, as we learn more about biology, we learn how truly impossible evolution could be as a viable theory.
All debunked right here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Like many bad theories in the past from the scientific community, it will eventually fall out of favor and be replaced by something else. You can already see it happening as people like Richard Dawkins play with the idea of extraterrestrial origins of life.
It is possible that a better theory may come along. So far no better explanation has been put forward, so we go with the one that works.

Oh, and panspermia is irrelevant to the validity of evolution. It may be relevant to abiogenesis, except it only relocates the problem of the formation of life elsewhere rather than solves it.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
So quit being a conformist. No one says you have to believe God did it. But theories come and go as we learn more and more about the universe. Darwinism is dead, get over it, and let real science make some real progress.
Darwinism may be dead. Darwin is dead. The guy's been dead for over a century after all.(shrug)

The modern synthesis however still lives on.

There's a difference to being a "non-conformist" and a crank who simply repeats creationist fallacies.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#37555 Aug 12, 2012
RU CRS wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you so much sir. May the love of God be with you and yours.
Amen!!!
You are welcome...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37556 Aug 12, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, I never stated I am a Creationist. I am not. I have no idea how all this got started. And neither does the scientific community.
You just named a few positive mutations, that is not enough by a long shot. Positive mutations do not occur mathematically at a rate to create a viable model.
Baseless claim. Your buddy HTS already tried the Sanford argument and lost.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
And doing it is in lab is more evidence of design than evolution, since scientists are there making it happen in a controlled environment.
Yeah, and me planting a tree is evidence that all plants were planted by humans. Terrific logic!

By the way, "design" is another word for creationism. But then you already knew that.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Until you can go back in time and get some real, hard evidence, all you have is an interpretation of the data.
Except the creationist "interpretation" doesn't work. Evolution does. As I've just demonstrated.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
No, there are suspected transitional fossils, but that is not proven at all. The very few examples that exist, again, is not strong evidence when so much is still lacking.
Repeating your lie doesn't make it anything other than a lie. Of course when transitionals are presented to you you won't accept them anyway.

So why are you demanding evidence when you already know you don't care about evidence in the first place?
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
I don't have to prove evolution wrong.
Then it still stands.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
It has never been proven correct.
It HAS been demonstrated that it works. Another example is SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) which uses evolutionary algorithms to predict protein function with 96% accuracy. Since we have no better alternative at the moment I'll take 96% accurate over "Well uh I dunno maybe Goddidit with magic" any day.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Science demands more evidence, and since this has become a cultural, political, and religion issue, science has been brushed aside for expedience.
There is no scientific debate over whether or not evolution occurred. There is debate within the scientific community over how it occurred, which is normal for any valid scientific theory. As for the public side of things, the "debate" is a political one, manufactured by creationists, politicians and anti-science cranks for political reasons. You have chosen their side.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Sorry friend, but you are doing science no favors at all. We need more knowledge, not people clamoring with their fists.
Oh, the irony.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37557 Aug 12, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's actually quite the opposite, and always has been.
But you are welcome to do what no scientists had yet done ... show us conclusive evidence.:)
It's been done over and over. Before you were born even. You're simply not interested.(shrug)

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#37558 Aug 12, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is correct?,Ha,ha,ha,I 'm sure you have the recipe in the kitchen next to the pancake batter mix.Abiogenesis has absolutely ZERO evidence, Zero! yet you have swallowed it all on faith, why? It concurs with your world view, why don't you just choose the aliens seeded earth theory, it hasn't been proven unworkable in a lab like abiogenesis and you can still use the liar,fundie and uneducated tags for those who disagree.
That is just the bone of contention. You have hitted the nail on the head. Kudos!!!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37559 Aug 12, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it safe to assume anyone who does not believe the same pile of cráp you believe is an atheist?
Bingo.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37560 Aug 12, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't speak for Dude, but I thought you were challenging us to refute Intelligent Design.
The only way I know to refute Intelligent Design is through "arguments of imperfections of nature."
So I'm afraid you got us!
Bingo. Now the thing that he refuses to let sink in is that evolution does not rely on anti-creationism to support itself.

But hey, he can point to something Darwin said about God 150 years ago! There you have it! Evolution disproved!

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#37561 Aug 12, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do all of you evolutionists possess the same habit of scurring back to the theory of gravity like a child clinging to the leg of it's mother and whining,... if you don't believe me about evolution then you don't believe in gravity! Then with the audacity of a burgler you claim that the origin of life and evolution aren't connected!,of course they are! it's is the starting point of your evolution religion.The origin of life is the linch pin of the theory of evolution. Poll your fellow evo gooists and see how many think life started on it's own, and see how many believe life had a creator.
Bravo!!!
They only think through their arses and never through their brains. LOL...

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#37562 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problem is that you assume that God is not physical or does to conform to natural laws. No one is suggesting that god is magic. That is an atheistic myth. God acts through laws that man does not understand. That is no different than any theory of abiogenesis.
You are assuming a lot in this statement i.e. god is physical, that it is only atheists who believe god is magical, he is following physical laws.

I can't even conceive of some kind of physical law that would allow a physical entity, presumably floating in empty space, to create a whole universe with literally Trillions of stars and billions of galaxies...ex nihilo.

So your belief is that god multiplied the loafs of bread and the fish, and turned water into wine is not magic? Raising the body of Jesus after a few days of death and parting the Red/Reed Sea is not magic? Calling up 40 days and nights of rain to flood the entire earth is not magic?

I don't think you are thinking through what you are saying.

You see atheists don't believe in magic or the supernatural at all.
We don't believe that gods, demons, spirits, ghosts, satans or devils, heaven, hell, angels, etc. exist.

They would, all of them, depend on magic or supernatural. All of these things are figments of ancient goat-herders imaginations.

Just like your god, they are not provable...because they don't actually exist
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37563 Aug 12, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has a better theory, and the evidence does not SUPPORT anything. It is how we interpret the data, often biased by human delusions and misconceptions.
I don't know what happened. I don't care. I am not persuaded by any party in this matter. I just know the facts, and the fact remains is that evolution is just as much as a delusion as young-earth nonsense.
Like I said, all this has been a major setback to science. Try to think outside the box.
Oh, brilliant. Another nihilist.'How do you know where you there, nothing is knowable nihilism is the only option', yup, dumbosity all the way down. What, did Humble Brother put out an ad or something?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37564 Aug 12, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not denying any truths. There are none in this case to deny. The tens of thousands, or even tens of millions, of little bits of evidence is still subject to INTERPRETATION. The evidence does not support anyone in this case.
More primitive being? Primitive, my friend, is relative. I want to know the truth, too. But no one has it yet when to comes to the origin of life. The universe is a very mysterious place, and the more we learn, the more mysterious, and LARGER, it gets.
Except when one method of "interpreting" the evidence actually works and makes successful predictions, it's a good indication that it could well be correct.

Oh, and just in case? We still don't give a damm about your frakking UFO aliens.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37565 Aug 12, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
And when you have proof of that, let us all know about your profound findings.
Done before you got here.

Ages ago.

And I just presented it for you again.

You won't deal either.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37566 Aug 12, 2012
just_my_opinion wrote:
@ Subduction Zone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism
Maybe it's been a long day, but i don't get your reply. What does atavism have to do with monkeys? I assure you I don't have a tail.
Nope, there ain't a part on me where they took the tail off!!!

:-D

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.

Republican Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The no sale of Confederate flags has reached Co... 2 min 1983Valerie 121
News Governors vow to fight SCOTUS ruling on gay mar... 2 min barefoot2626 479
News Why the Confederate flag flies in SC 5 min juz wondering 1,929
News Charleston church shooting coverage criticized ... 20 min Effects of Racism 399
News Trump - what the village idiot says about the v... 31 min Cat74 423
News Texas Sen. Ted Cruz not backing down on same-se... 40 min Eleanor 78
News 2016 hopefuls react to Obamacare ruling 44 min Cat74 16
More from around the web