Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 195689 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: Apr 11

Location hidden

#112900 May 16, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol, borrowing a phrase from ChristineM? Pretty pathetic.
Wrong, it is an English phrase,any one can use that.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#112901 May 16, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Do YOU think before you type? "Not all atheists are scientists"?! Gee, ya think?
Both ways.
Mugwump

UK

#112902 May 16, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong, it is an English phrase,any one can use that.
Huh?,

Only if given permission by the owners surely?

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#112903 May 16, 2014
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh?,
Only if given permission by the owners surely?
Sorry to say this, colonialism, education, etc, have made that to be possible. Ok?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112904 May 16, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is a scientific theory? Or so they claim. No one can answer the question: What exactly was it that took evolution over the top to become a scientific theory?
Uh, that would be all the evidence that was posted for you... oh, WEEKS ago now.

Which you STILL haven't been able to refute yet.

Bozo.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112905 May 16, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
I will tell you what. Real Science is based upon scientific experiments that can be repeated over and over and over in a lab. One very simple example is water freezing at 0 degrees C.
Why don't you show me one experiment on evolution that can be demonstrated in a laboratory environment. Perhaps breeding single cell organisms to demonstrate isolation of characteristics without human input?
You can't do it because it is not observable science it is impossible to prove.
No problem. Take ANY human genome and find ten HERV-K1 retroviral remnants, being sure they are in orthologous positions. Take multiple samples. As many as you like.

Now go and find the EXACT same thing in ANY other species.

Any ones you like.

Every single one on the entire planet, if you're so inclined.

Then let me know what you find. Best of luck.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112906 May 16, 2014
The Facts wrote:
Advances in genetic sequencing are giving rise to a new era of scientific racism, despite decades of efforts to reverse attitudes used to justify the slave trade and Nazi theology, experts say.
New forms of discrimination, known as neoracism, are taking hold in scientific research, spreading the belief that races exist and are different in terms of biology, behavior and culture
Many distinguished scientists in the United States recognize that race itself is not a biological variable, but they still buy into the notion that shared ancestry can impart certain biological characteristics
http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics/new-...
What, so you never inherited your DNA from your parents?

Wow, you're even dumber than SevenTee. And that's saying something.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112907 May 16, 2014
The Facts wrote:
Genetic studies and fossil evidence show that Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa by between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.
The recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa is the predominant position held within the scientific community. There are differing theories on whether there was a single exodus or several.
Genetic testing in the last decade has revealed that several now extinct archaic human species may have interbred with modern humans. These species have been claimed to have left their genetic imprint in different regions across the world
This post contradicts your last one.

Stupid.
Apology accepted

Beverly, MA

#112908 May 16, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but for all practical intents and purposes on this forum it pretty much may as well be.
It's anti-science against science. I support the latter.
<quoted text>
Not necessarily, but it does demonstrate that you have had zero education in biology.
<quoted text>
Suppose that depends on the individual subject.
However in the case of evolution, there is no alternative. As always in ANY scientific field, it's always possible that there is another alternative, but no-one has come up with one yet.
So until then we go with what works. And evolution works pretty darn well.
<quoted text>
Not very often, but it's not a subject that really affects evolution all that much. Unless you take into account that (I think) they were used in helping us map the human genome, and thus helped demonstrate evolution in the process.
Other than that there's only Polymath who even comes close to being able to discuss quantum physics and he's not here right now.
But in general, the anti-science crowd generally fall into two camps about it:
1 - People who reject quantum physics because they don't understand it or don't like perceived philosophical implications of it.
2 - New agers who think it proves stuff that in reality it doesn't.
So that's why it tends to give me pause any time anybody brings it up.
<quoted text>
If you start babbling about car mechanics and get it all wrong, would it be rude for others to point out that you don't have a clue what you're talking about?
Fact is you didn't come across as neutral when you first started making claims about evolution and how it didn't work so good or was irrelevant to modern science. And the fact was you couldn't have been more wrong. It's one thing to come in from a neutral point of not knowing and asking questions. But quite another thing entirely when you claim it's irrelevant to biology. Evolution IS biology.
I apologise if we sometimes come off a little blunt, but also keep in mind that we've been here every day for years dealing with the anti-science claims of the anti-science crowd. Eventually one does reach a point where we call a spade a spade.
Apology accepted, we can all chill out now.

Enjoy trying to change minds. I am with you on the science front. I am not a fan of religion intruding into public education. My take on evolution comes from wanting more empirical data, otherwise the Fundies get to argue more.

If folks want religion in education, they need to send their kids to private school. I am not against evolution being taught in public schools, but I do think that there is room for questioning the data and seeking more data.

And whether you can comprehend it or not, Quantum Mechanics may have a lot more to do with biology than anyone can imagine. When you get down to the level of particles it gets downright crazy and weird.

I believe that it is impossible to separate mathematics, physics and biology. So am open to the idea that Evolution may not answer all the questions regarding how life operates.

Now carry on with your desire to change minds. Just be nice. People do not listen when they feel disrespected.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112909 May 16, 2014
Apology accepted wrote:
Apology accepted, we can all chill out now.
Enjoy trying to change minds. I am with you on the science front. I am not a fan of religion intruding into public education. My take on evolution comes from wanting more empirical data, otherwise the Fundies get to argue more.
There's empirical data aplenty, if you wanted to look. Heck there's well over 300,000 published papers on the subject on PubMed alone.

But you're forgetting that fundies aren't interested in data. They aren't interested in reality. This is not simply a misguided but concerned group of people who are worried about a lack of scientific integrity in the biological community. This is a very powerful very rich political group who wish to keep people stupid so they can attain more political power. Creationism is nothing more than a political movement, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. The goal being to be the biggest daddy on the block so they can tell anyone they don't like to go fugg themselves.

That's why there is no-one doing "ID research", and all their money is spent on PR and political pressuring, so they can illegally get their BS preached in public schools. And in any places the locals don't have the balls or the money to sue them, they get away with it.
Apology accepted wrote:
If folks want religion in education, they need to send their kids to private school. I am not against evolution being taught in public schools, but I do think that there is room for questioning the data and seeking more data.
Yet you saw where that line of reasoning can end up. For instance, kids in schools may be told by creationists that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It sounds impressive to kids and the layman, and even sounds reasonable when they explain it. However scientifically, it is wrong. Otherwise if it worked the way they said it did no-one could be born.

Kids are allowed to ask questions all they like, but they aren't able to be under the illusion that their questions are necessarily relevant to the validity of evolution. Kids in schools don't decide what is science. SCIENTISTS do that. And they do that via testing and research. No other class allows kids to decide what the correct answers are, and science class should be no different. But that's what the fundies want - to allow kids to say 2+2 is 17 and still pass their exams.
Apology accepted wrote:
And whether you can comprehend it or not, Quantum Mechanics may have a lot more to do with biology than anyone can imagine. When you get down to the level of particles it gets downright crazy and weird.
True, but most of biology is dealt with on a macro-level rather than a quantum level.
Apology accepted wrote:
I believe that it is impossible to separate mathematics, physics and biology. So am open to the idea that Evolution may not answer all the questions regarding how life operates.
Not all, but so far it's the only one that provides any answers. Any other proposals have to pass testing.
Apology accepted wrote:
Now carry on with your desire to change minds. Just be nice. People do not listen when they feel disrespected.
We aren't here to change fundie's minds. They aren't interested. We're here to provide a counter to their lies, and allow other more reasonable lurkers to make up their own minds should they pass by.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#112910 May 16, 2014
Quick point:
Seventy, you posted a comment once again claiming that evolution does not classify as a theory;
SevenTee wrote wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is a scientific theory? Or so they claim. No one can answer the question: What exactly was it that took evolution over the top to become a scientific theory?
And you got the following response;
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, that would be all the evidence that was posted for you... oh, WEEKS ago now.
Which you STILL haven't been able to refute yet.
Bozo.
The Dude brings up a very good point - you seem to be very selective on the posts you reply to. You have been asked several questions in the past that you do not address, and given much data that you do not consider in your comments.

I would like to readdress some of these, please respond;

- You posted, and I quote; "There is not one single benefit for mankind due to half baked "theory" of evolution..."

And yet you sit in front of a computer happily banging out comments. Do you honestly feel that evolution has provided zero benefits for current day man, i.e. YOU? Please elaborate.

- You claim to believe in Noah, therefore you obviously believe in the Bible. If you believe in the Bible, you obviously believe that the Earth is no more than 6000 - 7000 years old. Yet while disputing fossils, you mention that a bone could be resting on a 10 million year-old layer of Earth, falsely representing the true age of the bone, subsequently admitting that the Earth is at least 10 Million years old, contradicting the Bible. How can that be? Either you believe and confess that there are major flaws in the Bible, or you are selectively extracting certain points you use in your arguments and ignoring others that go against your belief. Which is it? Please elaborate.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#112911 May 16, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There's empirical data aplenty, if you wanted to look. Heck there's well over 300,000 published papers on the subject on PubMed alone.
But you're forgetting that fundies aren't interested in data. They aren't interested in reality. This is not simply a misguided but concerned group of people who are worried about a lack of scientific integrity in the biological community. This is a very powerful very rich political group who wish to keep people stupid so they can attain more political power. Creationism is nothing more than a political movement, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. The goal being to be the biggest daddy on the block so they can tell anyone they don't like to go fugg themselves.
That's why there is no-one doing "ID research", and all their money is spent on PR and political pressuring, so they can illegally get their BS preached in public schools. And in any places the locals don't have the balls or the money to sue them, they get away with it.
<quoted text>
Yet you saw where that line of reasoning can end up. For instance, kids in schools may be told by creationists that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It sounds impressive to kids and the layman, and even sounds reasonable when they explain it. However scientifically, it is wrong. Otherwise if it worked the way they said it did no-one could be born.
Kids are allowed to ask questions all they like, but they aren't able to be under the illusion that their questions are necessarily relevant to the validity of evolution. Kids in schools don't decide what is science. SCIENTISTS do that. And they do that via testing and research. No other class allows kids to decide what the correct answers are, and science class should be no different. But that's what the fundies want - to allow kids to say 2+2 is 17 and still pass their exams.
<quoted text>
True, but most of biology is dealt with on a macro-level rather than a quantum level.
<quoted text>
Not all, but so far it's the only one that provides any answers. Any other proposals have to pass testing.
<quoted text>
We aren't here to change fundie's minds. They aren't interested. We're here to provide a counter to their lies, and allow other more reasonable lurkers to make up their own minds should they pass by.
Excellent post. It's my opinion that you speak for many of us with these points.

I'd like to raise a particular comment - "This is a very powerful very rich political group who wish to keep people stupid so they can attain more political power". Talk about a can of worms. I've travelled to many corners of the planet, and this is a common practice in many third-world countries. It is still apparent here in Brazil, although it's gotten much better over the last few decades.

People don't realize that an ignorant population is a desired population in the eyes of the powerful. Fortunately increased communications is helping to stem this, but 'fear of God' and cheap alcohol are still some of the tools used to keep the ignorant at bay.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#112912 May 16, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
People don't realize that an ignorant population is a desired population in the eyes of the powerful. Fortunately increased communications is helping to stem this, but 'fear of God' and cheap alcohol are still some of the tools used to keep the ignorant at bay.
Which is why I only buy the GOOD (not-so-cheap) alcohol.

My body is a temple. ;-)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112913 May 16, 2014
Tinka wrote:
<quoted text>
Would it really it would further our future?
I don't think so but then I am sure we are not from the same planet...
No doubt.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112914 May 16, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is a scientific theory? Or so they claim. No one can answer the question: What exactly was it that took evolution over the top to become a scientific theory?
Here is what is not being put forth on that page. There is really no "exact" criteria that has to be met. According to how this is written, any half descent theory can be this. The reason they won't list it as 1,2,3 criteria etc... Is because it would make evolution have to meet an exact criteria that it cannot meet. If anyone can list it 1,2,3, etc... on what criteria has to be met. You can start another thread and we can test evolution to see if it actually meets that criteria. But let's be honest, no one can actually do this or it would have already be done.
One more thing, I already know some evolutionists will be tempted to use the Nobel Prize comment here. Which since they gave it to Gore makes it have no meaning to me and many have lost respect for it because of that. So the comment would be pointless.
And what is you 1,2,3 criteria? Do you even know?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112915 May 16, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
I will tell you what. Real Science is based upon scientific experiments that can be repeated over and over and over in a lab. One very simple example is water freezing at 0 degrees C.
Why don't you show me one experiment on evolution that can be demonstrated in a laboratory environment. Perhaps breeding single cell organisms to demonstrate isolation of characteristics without human input?
You can't do it because it is not observable science it is impossible to prove.
Excuse me but is REAL science anything Like TRUE science?

BTW, do you think radiometric is not done in a lab? How about genetics?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#112916 May 16, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
I will tell you what. Real Science is based upon scientific experiments that can be repeated over and over and over in a lab. One very simple example is water freezing at 0 degrees C.
This is a false conception of science. For example,'real science' can discuss how stars change over time as they use up their nuclear fuel. No experiment in a lab will be able to do that directly.

Instead, we use the information we obtain in the lab to create overall descriptions of natural laws and then we can apply those laws to things like the insides of stars. We can also test the predictions that those laws make when applied to the insides of stars by setting up experiments in our labs (or in space).

You see,*real* science has an interaction between specific results from the lab, general descriptions determined from those lab results, theoretical descriptions that allow predictions based on observed regularities, and application to situations where we cannot directly test. All components are essential for real science. The direct experimentation in the lab is only one part.
Why don't you show me one experiment on evolution that can be demonstrated in a laboratory environment. Perhaps breeding single cell organisms to demonstrate isolation of characteristics without human input?
Well, setting up the lab is human input, isn't it? Setting up the conditions is human input, isn't it?
You can't do it because it is not observable science it is impossible to prove.
Wrong. We can observe fossil evidence to show that species change over geological time. We can observe populations to see how specific stresses lead to changes in those populations. We can learn in the lab how genes work and how mutations happen and what sorts of changes those mutations can make to the genome. We can use theoretical models to see how the information from the labs will produce changes over time periods that go beyond the few decades available to humans researchers. We can test our ideas by looking at the fossil record, looking at lab results concerning genes, looking at field results concerning populations, etc. The point is that these all give a consistent scheme for understanding *that* and *how* species change over time. No one experiment accomplishes the whole thing.

In the same way, no single experiment in the lab demonstrates our understanding of how stars change over time. The time scales are simply too large. But we can do lab measurements of things like reaction cross sections, field measurements of stars via telescopes, lab results showing the basic laws of thermodynamics, etc. And all of this knowledge can be used to understand the cores of stars.

And yes, that is real science.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#112917 May 16, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
you seem to be very selective on the posts you reply to.
Aren't they all?(shrug)
Gene

Owensboro, KY

#112919 May 16, 2014
New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional

http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about...

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#112920 May 16, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
A 35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation. They wrote that "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations". "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments."
Documentation?

Even you said science records results, and this is very important.
Otherwise anyone can make any claim based on conjecture belief or complete bull hockey.

It's not that i don't trust you, it's science does not "BELIEVE IN THINGS" that cannot be substantiated.

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
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 min HILLARY 2016 223,188
News North Carolina's rush to bigotry 4 min woodtick57 3,004
News Dueling groups to rally at Confederate landmark 9 min ThomasA 657
News Local Republicans, voters react to likely Trump... 13 min Grubby 28
News Will 'John From Iowa' Be The Benghazi Witness W... 23 min woodtick57 16
News GOP leaders ignore calls to confirm Garland 27 min Responsibility 1
News Congress heads out with no resolution on Zika, ... 38 min tbird19482 14
More from around the web