Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222920 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: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#88230 Apr 28, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes the Bible talks about people being willing ignorant. You know people like you.
No, that would be people like you. Just because the Bible says something you cannot apply that haphazardly to support your debunked beliefs. I can use it against idiots like you. When it became obvious that you did not know what evidence was I nicely offered to teach you how you could recognize scientific evidence. Even though this ability would improve your ability to argue against evolution you rejected my offer since you knew you would not be able to lie about evidence any more with what you consider a clean conscious.

You are not only a liar you are a hypocrite too. But then don't worry, most creatards have the same problem.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#88231 Apr 28, 2013
ViaDolorosa wrote:
Even satan believes in Jesus - so that would mean that he is wiser than atheists.
Sad - and scary.
No, Satan is just another myth. Once again, adults take responsibility for their actions. They do not blame their bad actions upon others.

So do you want to see evidence for evolution? Since you have shown that you do not understand evidence you will first have to take a very short class in what is and what is not scientific evidence.
ViaDolorosa

Columbus, GA

#88232 Apr 28, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Orthologous Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs)
BIologists tells us that ancient viruses left a marker in the host animal's cells. If it HAPPENED to leave this retroviral maker in a SPERM cell, then that ERV marker was passed down to EVERY SUBSEQUENT descendant and is clearly visible in the species' genome.
Now the question is "Why do humans share approximately 200,000 different ERV markers with chimps, slightly less than that with gorillas, and again slightly less with orangutans. Why are these retroviral markers in EXACTLY the same place in the genomes of humans, gorillas, chimps, monkeys, etc. but NOT visible in the genomes of other mammals such as mice, foxes, horses, etc."
The obvious and rational answer is common descent from the same ancestors.
Looking at one retrovirus (HERV-K) here's what we find:
# of retroviral insertion points in common between humans and...
New World Monkeys: 2
Old World Monkeys: 4
Gibbons: 7
Orangutans: 9
Gorillas & Chimps: 11
Other Humans: 14
So what does that tell us?
It tells us that we share a common ancestor with all of these.
It tells us the order in which the various groups split off.
The least # of viruses in common split first. The most # split last.
The odds against humans and chimps both aquiring 11 common inserts? 1:1 followed by 132 zeros.
That is why DNA researchers consider ERVs to be slam-the-door positive evidence for evolution.
.
.
Sigh.....
.
This doesnít prove evolution at all. This would be yet another interpretation of what you see under a microscope when it comes to genetics. You still need for example to actuallysee it take place as they claim. What do we continue to see in captivity with all the animals we have in the world at zoos? Dogs give birth to dogs, and not a freak show animal. And evolutionist contend that they donít claim animals give rise to a half dog half sheep (this is only an example b/c evolutionist tend to take what is said to an extreme). Bottom line is if you ask them, the common ancestor between apes and humans what was the % of that animal? Was it 50% human and 50% ape and gave birth to a human being that was 90% human and 10% ape? Did it give birthtoo twins an ape and a human where the ape was 90% ape and 10% human and the human had 90% human and 10% ape? Do you see where IĒm going with this? The question remains, how and what did the common ancestor look like? What did it give birth to? You canít continue to say well it takes millions of years, well bottom line if there is a common ancestor btwapes and humans then that ape like creature or human like creature is giving birth and rise to a half ape/human like creature and no matter how much you talk about it, eventually you get us 100% human or are we according to evolutionist.



ERVísprove nothing at all unless you can produce the common ancestor, how it gave rise or have the question answered that did it give birth to twin creatures a ape and a human like animal, or what. You just canít show us an evolutionary tree and show common ancestry unless you are willing to say that the common ancestor had to give birth to some pretty odd offspring that kept branching to you get humans, apes, whales, bats, whatever, there should be a fossil record full of strange transitional, but you see fossils that look like modern day creatures which is not consistent with what we see in evolutionary where there is suppose to be this common ancestry. If it takes millions of years of slow change then you should have that in the record but you have animals that look like what you can find on earth with argues against slow change.
.
For more information from the above excerpt, please click here:
http://egoeimi3.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/ervs...

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#88233 Apr 28, 2013
ViaDolorosa wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Like many "religions", you are basing your assumptions, and beliefs, on a mere secular "man" who had a theory, Woodtick. A "theory". His information was not based on any thing other than his opinion.
.
In other words, he, like you, was unable to explain "God" or Creation - so he came up with an opinion on what he "thinks" happened.
.
Is that who you want to follow behind? Goodness.
Woodtick may be angry with fundies. Since they do tend to lie quite a lot I can see why he feels that way. He does not have any religious beliefs that I know of or any religion at all.

Atheism is not a religion. Atheists do not believe in god because sufficient evidence has never been given to believe in a god. You do not name people for what they don't believe in, it would take years to describe a person if that is the case. For example you are not an Allah denying, anti-Thor, non-Krishna, lapsed-Buddhist..... the list goes on and on. You are a Christian. You believe in Jesus, the trinity (probably) and all that goes with it. When an atheist is asked about his religious beliefs he simple says that he does not have any.

Think of it this way, is not playing football a sport?
ViaDolorosa

Columbus, GA

#88234 Apr 28, 2013
See, Gillette, and other present atheists-
.
We can all continue to copy/paste information that supports each of our beliefs til the cows come home. That settles nothing.
.
But, belief in God cannot be proven by science, nor any other manmade platform. God is supernatural - and if you guys are actually interested, which I don't think you are, but IF you are, then there are hundreds of youtube videos, as well as even more recounts of people who have witnessed and experienced unexplainable miracles and other divine presence.
.
But no one has time nor the desire to sit here and copy and paste all day long when it appears the only reason you guys want Christian response or participation in this forum is to use us for target practice.
.
Who would want to sit through that.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#88235 Apr 28, 2013
ViaDolorosa wrote:
<quoted text>
.
.
Sigh.....
.
This doesnít prove evolution at all. This would be yet another interpretation of what you see under a microscope when it comes to genetics. You still need for example to actuallysee it take place as they claim. What do we continue to see in captivity with all the animals we have in the world at zoos? Dogs give birth to dogs, and not a freak show animal. And evolutionist contend that they donít claim animals give rise to a half dog half sheep (this is only an example b/c evolutionist tend to take what is said to an extreme). Bottom line is if you ask them, the common ancestor between apes and humans what was the % of that animal? Was it 50% human and 50% ape and gave birth to a human being that was 90% human and 10% ape? Did it give birthtoo twins an ape and a human where the ape was 90% ape and 10% human and the human had 90% human and 10% ape? Do you see where IĒm going with this? The question remains, how and what did the common ancestor look like? What did it give birth to? You canít continue to say well it takes millions of years, well bottom line if there is a common ancestor btwapes and humans then that ape like creature or human like creature is giving birth and rise to a half ape/human like creature and no matter how much you talk about it, eventually you get us 100% human or are we according to evolutionist.
ERVísprove nothing at all unless you can produce the common ancestor, how it gave rise or have the question answered that did it give birth to twin creatures a ape and a human like animal, or what. You just canít show us an evolutionary tree and show common ancestry unless you are willing to say that the common ancestor had to give birth to some pretty odd offspring that kept branching to you get humans, apes, whales, bats, whatever, there should be a fossil record full of strange transitional, but you see fossils that look like modern day creatures which is not consistent with what we see in evolutionary where there is suppose to be this common ancestry. If it takes millions of years of slow change then you should have that in the record but you have animals that look like what you can find on earth with argues against slow change.
.
For more information from the above excerpt, please click here:
http://egoeimi3.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/ervs...
And you clearly do not understand the theory you are trying to argue against. You are correct in a way about everything reproducing after their kind. The correct term is "clade". Once an animal is in a clade all of its descendants are in the same clade too. By the way, you made a very gross mistake. We share a common ancestor with other great apes. And since that ancestor would be called an ape, then we are apes too. So no, there was no 90% ape 10% human. All of the steps up are ape. Perhaps you want to rethink your terminology.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#88236 Apr 28, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Your assignment Jim, should you decide to except it is to look up the meaning of the following words so you can start using them correctly.
Fact
Proof
Proven
Lie
Truth
Cult
This posting will self destruct in 5 seconds........ Humm .... Ah come on destruct already ......
Well maybe not......
got them down already as my posts well show.

still not one bit of those proofs you say you have?

i have shown mine all the time...

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#88237 Apr 28, 2013
ViaDolorosa wrote:
See, Gillette, and other present atheists-
.
We can all continue to copy/paste information that supports each of our beliefs til the cows come home. That settles nothing.
.
But, belief in God cannot be proven by science, nor any other manmade platform. God is supernatural - and if you guys are actually interested, which I don't think you are, but IF you are, then there are hundreds of youtube videos, as well as even more recounts of people who have witnessed and experienced unexplainable miracles and other divine presence.
.
But no one has time nor the desire to sit here and copy and paste all day long when it appears the only reason you guys want Christian response or participation in this forum is to use us for target practice.
.
Who would want to sit through that.
There are no "unexplainable miracles". You might not like the explanations, but they are out their. We can show that all of the scientific evidence supports evolution and none of it supports creationism. And evolution does not disprove god. It does not even disprove Jesus and Christianity. There are easy explanations why Jesus might have referred to Noah and Adam. So please, don't think that evolution is anti-Christian. Worldwide most Christians probably do believe the theory of evolution. The high percentage of creationists seems to be a feature of the U.S. and not that of any other civilized country. I am not denying that there are creationists elsewhere in the world, just not in the high percentages that you see here.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#88238 Apr 28, 2013
ViaDolorosa wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Like many "religions", you are basing your assumptions, and beliefs, on a mere secular "man" who had a theory, Woodtick. A "theory". His information was not based on any thing other than his opinion.
.
In other words, he, like you, was unable to explain "God" or Creation - so he came up with an opinion on what he "thinks" happened.
.
Is that who you want to follow behind? Goodness.
Again, yo are talking about things you do not understand in the slightest and it is making you look like an even bigger ass.

you need to understand what a scientific theory is and all the requirements needed to make it so.(lest you look like a bigger fool than you do now.
KJV

United States

#88239 Apr 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>Blah, blah, blah.
ViaDolorosa

Don't bother with MikeF. Awhile back right on these threads he committed Blasphemy of the Holy Spirt. Yup the only unforgivable sin. His soul is damned and there is no saving it.
ViaDolorosa

Columbus, GA

#88240 Apr 28, 2013
Published in a 1915 newsletter - you might want to read this.
.
http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/d...
.
All we have to go on is history - and faith. So take this for what its worth - I'm sure it will spark a few "It's a lie!!" comments. I'm getting the impression that it matters not what is said or presented to you guys - your ultimate defense will always be "You're a liar!".
KJV

United States

#88241 Apr 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Most atheists in the U.S. know the Bible much better than most Christians. They have sought. They are also aware of possible traps, such as confirmation bias. The evidence does not seem to be out there.
"Most atheists in the U.S. know the Bible much better than most Christians"

Link? Or am I to talk your word for it. LOL
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#88242 Apr 28, 2013
ViaDolorosa wrote:
<quoted text>
This doesnít prove evolution at all.
Yes, it DOES according to people who actually work in the field, including confirmed, practicing Christians like Francis Collins, Ken Miller and Karl Giberson.

Unlike you, of course, they actually UNDERSTAND what ERVs are and why they are so stunning as proof of evolution.

There are 3 BILLION base pairs in the human genome, therefore 3 BILLION places where that ancient virus could have left its mark. ALL human beings have hundreds of these retroviral markers in EXACTLY THE SAME PLACES in their genome.

Also, other members of the ape family ALSO share these makers with us (orangutans, gorillas, monkeys, etc.) and they too have them in EXACTLY THE SAME PLACES in their genome. by contrast, other mammals such as horse, mice, squirrels, etc. do NTO share these same retroviral makers with us.

The only reasonable explanation for the above is that we share common descent with these members of the ape family and we all evolved form earlier members of the ape family who HAD THESE MARKERS in their genomes and passed them down to us.

You really cannot intelligently spin this any other way.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#88243 Apr 28, 2013
ViaDolorosa wrote:
Published in a 1915 newsletter - you might want to read this.
.
http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/d...
.
All we have to go on is history - and faith. So take this for what its worth - I'm sure it will spark a few "It's a lie!!" comments. I'm getting the impression that it matters not what is said or presented to you guys - your ultimate defense will always be "You're a liar!".
what you are forgetting , dear, is that each and everyone of your silly ideas, most of which you don't even undertsand yourself, have been clearly proven to be lies.

how would you know if they are the truth in the first place when you are clearly posting things you are not capable of understanding? you are nothing more than a parrot.
KJV

United States

#88244 Apr 28, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>No, you are wrong....I live a sin free life.
Sure you do.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#88245 Apr 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Woodtick may be angry with fundies. Since they do tend to lie quite a lot I can see why he feels that way. He does not have any religious beliefs that I know of or any religion at all.
Atheism is not a religion. Atheists do not believe in god because sufficient evidence has never been given to believe in a god. You do not name people for what they don't believe in, it would take years to describe a person if that is the case. For example you are not an Allah denying, anti-Thor, non-Krishna, lapsed-Buddhist..... the list goes on and on. You are a Christian. You believe in Jesus, the trinity (probably) and all that goes with it. When an atheist is asked about his religious beliefs he simple says that he does not have any.
Think of it this way, is not playing football a sport?
why would you think i am angry?
ViaDolorosa

Columbus, GA

#88246 Apr 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no "unexplainable miracles". You might not like the explanations, but they are out their. We can show that all of the scientific evidence supports evolution and none of it supports creationism. And evolution does not disprove god. It does not even disprove Jesus and Christianity. There are easy explanations why Jesus might have referred to Noah and Adam. So please, don't think that evolution is anti-Christian. Worldwide most Christians probably do believe the theory of evolution. The high percentage of creationists seems to be a feature of the U.S. and not that of any other civilized country. I am not denying that there are creationists elsewhere in the world, just not in the high percentages that you see here.
.
.
The below recount is just one - in thousands upon thousands, of accounts of unexplained miracles.
.
A newborn baby died shortly after birth - true story - and they were letting the family hold it before taking it to the morgue.
Approximately 20-25 minutes later, the baby began breathing again. The baby was/is fine and suffers no brain damage today.
.
Science says that a human brain cannot ("cannot") go 4 minutes without oxygen before it will suffer damage.
.
.
----------
Unexplainable?
.
Source: Sept 2010 UK http://www.today.com/id/38988444/ns/today-par...

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#88247 Apr 28, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Most atheists in the U.S. know the Bible much better than most Christians"
Link? Or am I to talk your word for it. LOL
Since I am not a lying fundamentalist you can take my word for it.

I am not like you.

You should know this by now, this has been discussed before, complete with links. And you could have found this out for yourself:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/2...

Yes, even for someone like you, Google is your friend.
KJV

United States

#88248 Apr 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Denial. You cannot decide what religion a man has, only that man can. And according to Hitler he was one of you.
Being a Christian is not a club that you can belong to while living a sinful life.
You must turn your life over to God
Something Hitler did not do.
ViaDolorosa

Columbus, GA

#88249 Apr 28, 2013
Another newborn miracle - from 2012 - in Argentina. Newborn baby girl born, lived 20 minutes, then died.
.
Doctors pronounced her dead and took her to the freezer - and that's where she was 12 hours later when her parents went down to get a photo of her for the funeral. They opened the coffin - and touched her hand - and she began to cry.
.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-574130...

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 Gov: Removing Confederate statues like losing 9... 4 min swampmudd 429
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 17 min Lyndi 36,457
News Pence leaves NFL game after players kneel durin... 18 min spud 692
News US Sen. John McCain receives Liberty Medal from... 23 min spud 52
News GOP health bill all but dead; McCain again deal... 48 min spud 500
News APNewsBreak: Mike Pence's brother plans to run ... 1 hr Minnesota Mike 1
News Trump warns 'I fight back' after McCain hits fo... 1 hr Cordwainer Trout 21
More from around the web