Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
48,961 - 48,980 of 115,216 Comments Last updated 3 min ago

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#51148 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Its funny but when someone posts and perhaps misspells or makes a typo, as long as I understand what they intended to say, I never mention the typo.
Murphy's law is definitely being applied to the religion of evolution.
LOL
:)
And again you did not read my post or you made a major spelling error. I never referred to Murphy's law in my post.

By the way, it seems that since all of your other claims have been shown to be wrong all you have left is to lie about evolution being a religion. And what is really amazing is that you are still doing this after the quotes you cited were found to be in error, remember evolution has been tested many many times, or were taken out of context, in other words you lied by quote mining.

Why should anyone believe someone that has been proven (in the colloquial sense) to be a liar?

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#51149 Oct 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Me neither. In fact it is the people who smoke dope that tend not to believe the theory of evolution. Why aren't you with your toking buddies. Nerdy scientist types tend to leave drugs alone.
2) Me neither. No one hates woofy. Laugh at him, yes. Deride his idiocy, of course. But hate? No.
1)asking me why I don't smoke dope indicates that you probably do. My choice! I don't smoke anything.I like my clean lungs.

2) I don't know that person you call woofy but you talk the same about that person as you do everyone who disagrees with your religion/evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#51150 Oct 8, 2012
Oh my proof that we are all wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Checkmate Atheists!

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#51151 Oct 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, you made a positive statement. Without evidence I will take it for what it is, a lie.
You deny your own religion?
LOL

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#51152 Oct 8, 2012
Nimbletwig wrote:
Creation.
.
.
Evolution!

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#51153 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Your religion/evolution has blinded you from the truth.
Also the fact that you belong to the fastest shrinking religion/evolution in the world.
Au contraire mon ami, non-believers are the fastest growing group. They are now third in size after Christianity at 2.1 billion. Islam at 1.8 billion, and non-believers at 1.1 billion

“I don't give a crap anymore.”

Since: Jan 08

Plainfield, IL

#51154 Oct 8, 2012
lmfao, what's wrong with society these days...

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#51155 Oct 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And again you did not read my post or you made a major spelling error. I never referred to Murphy's law in my post.
By the way, it seems that since all of your other claims have been shown to be wrong all you have left is to lie about evolution being a religion. And what is really amazing is that you are still doing this after the quotes you cited were found to be in error, remember evolution has been tested many many times, or were taken out of context, in other words you lied by quote mining.
Why should anyone believe someone that has been proven (in the colloquial sense) to be a liar?
"I never referred to Murphy's law in my post"

REALLY? WELL, ITS TRUE THAT YOU MISSPELLED "MURPHY'S....
Subduction Zone

Since: Sep 08
3,131

Everett, WA
Reply »|Report Abuse|Judge it!|#510961 hr ago

President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you whining?
I didn't notice nor care about a typo.
I was simply teasing you for going back and correcting yourself.
LOL
Does your religion/evolution prohibit you from humor?
"Stuff's gettin better"
2012
Clearly you have no idea what whining is. I was not whining. I do hate to make mistakes in English. Especially obvious ones involving to, too, and two.
***Also it irks me when I am a victim of Muphry's Law.***
__________

**Also it irks me when I am a victim of Muphry's Law.***
**Also it irks me when I am a victim of Muphry's Law.***

**Also it irks me when I am a victim of Muphry's Law.***
**Also it irks me when I am a victim of Muphry's Law.***

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#51156 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….” Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted,“Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? See: The religious nature of evolution,“It’s not science”.
I see you're posting the 15 outdated questions (those site, though many are usually 30 years behind on developments) on the creationist site. No problem with that, but i do not see any cogent though going on in processing the answers, since you allready stated that nothing would change your views (whatever those of a troll might be). So purely out of self-serving curiosity, since i could not recall Popper being that simplistic.
wiki quote:
Origin and evolution of life
The creation–evolution controversy in the United States raises the issue of whether creationistic ideas may be legitimately called science and whether evolution itself may be legitimately called science. In the debate, both sides and even courts in their decisions have frequently invoked Popper's criterion of falsifiability. In this context, passages written by Popper are frequently quoted in which he speaks about such issues himself. For example, he famously stated "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program — a possible framework for testable scientific theories." He continued:

And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work.[24]
He also noted that theism, presented as explaining adaptation, "was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached."[25]

end quote

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#51157 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
You deny your own religion?
LOL
You can't even make a decent joke.

As I said earlier: Next!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#51158 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
"I never referred to Murphy's law in my post"
REALLY? WELL, ITS TRUE THAT YOU MISSPELLED "MURPHY'S....
Subduction Zone
Since: Sep 08
3,131
Everett, WA
Reply »|Report Abuse|Judge it!|#510961 hr ago
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you whining?
I didn't notice nor care about a typo.
I was simply teasing you for going back and correcting yourself.
LOL
Does your religion/evolution prohibit you from humor?
"Stuff's gettin better"
2012
Clearly you have no idea what whining is. I was not whining. I do hate to make mistakes in English. Especially obvious ones involving to, too, and two.
***Also it irks me when I am a victim of Muphry's Law.***
__________
**Also it irks me when I am a victim of Muphry's Law.***
**Also it irks me when I am a victim of Muphry's Law.***
**Also it irks me when I am a victim of Muphry's Law.***
**Also it irks me when I am a victim of Muphry's Law.***
Nope, my spelling was correct since I never referred to Murphy's Law in that post. You don't have to trust me, go back and check for yourself.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#51159 Oct 8, 2012
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you're posting the 15 outdated questions (those site, though many are usually 30 years behind on developments) on the creationist site. No problem with that, but i do not see any cogent though going on in processing the answers, since you allready stated that nothing would change your views (whatever those of a troll might be). So purely out of self-serving curiosity, since i could not recall Popper being that simplistic.
wiki quote:
Origin and evolution of life
The creation–evolution controversy in the United States raises the issue of whether creationistic ideas may be legitimately called science and whether evolution itself may be legitimately called science. In the debate, both sides and even courts in their decisions have frequently invoked Popper's criterion of falsifiability. In this context, passages written by Popper are frequently quoted in which he speaks about such issues himself. For example, he famously stated "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program — a possible framework for testable scientific theories." He continued:
And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work.[24]
He also noted that theism, presented as explaining adaptation, "was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached."[25]
end quote
WOW!
You keen insight has just totally convinced me and I can now embrace the religion of evolution.
(End sarcasm)

But seriously, the questions are not outdated as they have never been answered and to be honest, they will never be answered by the religion of evolution.

"Stuff's gettin better"
2012

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#51160 Oct 8, 2012
*Your*

Because "You evolved into your"

Hahahaha!

“I don't give a crap anymore.”

Since: Jan 08

Plainfield, IL

#51161 Oct 8, 2012
dang lol

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#51162 Oct 8, 2012
I am sure that no matter how many times I tell Starky to go back and read my post he will never see his error:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#51163 Oct 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't even make a decent joke.
As I said earlier: Next!
I can't make nearly as good a joke as you.
But I do intend to help remove your joke from office in a few weeks.

:)

"Stuff's gettin better"
2012

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#51164 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't make nearly as good a joke as you.
But I do intend to help remove your joke from office in a few weeks.
:)
"Stuff's gettin better"
2012
Really? My guy is not in office. So that means you will be voting for Obama. I thought there was reason you had his picture as your avatar.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#51165 Oct 8, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>
The Second Law of Thermo uses an inference, and so does ID. If thermodynamics is science then ID is science. Have you ever read anything by Dembski?
Yes. Dembski is an idiot. He's a mathematician, not a scientist, and not a very good one. Thermodynamics doesn't work the way creationists think it does otherwise you would not be alive to talk about it (for some reason they love to make up BS why evolution is wrong and inadvertently destroy all life on Earth, or sometimes the entire universe) and as for ID? It is so far undemonstrated.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#51166 Oct 8, 2012
Ruse is a kind of purist, he likes to keep atheism clean:
But I think first that these people do a disservice to scholarship. Their treatment of the religious viewpoint is pathetic to the point of non-being. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant.(He was just this when, thirty years ago, Mary Midgeley went after the selfish gene concept without the slightest knowledge of genetics.) Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#51167 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>WOW!
You keen insight has just totally convinced me and I can now embrace the religion of evolution.
(End sarcasm)
But seriously, the questions are not outdated as they have never been answered and to be honest, they will never be answered by the religion of evolution.
"Stuff's gettin better"
2012
Of course! When things are answered just pretend they aren't answered! It's the creationist way! Just lie like hell and God will forgive you. Because YOU are IMPORTANT! He PERSONALLY gave you your get out of jail free card!

Remember, God is watching...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 25 min Mugwump 172,510
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 1 hr TurkanaBoy 315
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 6 hr TedHOhio 200
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 hr DanFromSmithville 136,248
Science News (Sep '13) Thu positronium 2,848
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Aug 27 Zog Has-fallen 343
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14) Aug 25 reMAAT 20
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••