Evolution vs. Creation

There are 162170 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

#69339 Dec 31, 2012
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
XO wrote: really?...show me the verse that Christ says...kill your enemies.
KittenKoder replied: No, your god commands it.
And he did. Oh, sorry, that was the days before wine and roses hippy days, right? My bad.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69340 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69341 Dec 31, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Have it your way. Meanwhile, without explanation, I'll feel free to dismiss your claim as groundless.
And I'll feel free to ask for your grounds when making a claim. Such is politics.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69342 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
And that includes freedom of religion, and politics that isn't trying to bring down the government. That's why we reject Communism as a legitimate political party.
Actually methinks American Communists don't view themselves as trying to bring down the Government but rather have it operate differently. But let's face it, most of America doesn't know the difference between Communism and Stalinism. But I digress...
anonymous wrote:
That's why the stipulations on discrimination are almost exclusively based on genetics. It's a current problem that we consider religion a discrimination issue.
So religion is based on genetics? Really?
anonymous wrote:
If any religion, which I won't suggest any by name, gets it into their doctrine that they must destroy democracy, then I'll bet that we'll be amending the Constitution to address the subject properly.
Well the creationists HAVE been trying to do that for over a century. So far (thankfully) they've been unsuccessful for the most part. Doesn't mean to say they won't stop trying though.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69343 Dec 31, 2012
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Other Translations of Exodus 20:13
Thou shalt not kill.
- King James Version (1611)
"You shall not murder.
- New American Standard Version (1995)
Thou shalt not kill.
- American Standard Version (1901)
Do not put anyone to death without cause.
- Basic English Bible
Thou shalt not kill.
- Darby Bible
Thou shalt not kill.
- Douay Rheims Bible
Thou shalt not kill.
- Webster's Bible
You shall not murder.
- World English Bible
`Thou dost not murder.
- Youngs Literal Bible
Thou shalt not murder.
Let's see: Murder is cool if God sanctions it. Thou shalt not kill contradicts God-sanctioned killing. And do not put anyone to death without good cause allows for such causes as gays, slaves, magical witches and disobedient sons to name a few.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#69344 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>And I'll feel free to ask for your grounds when making a claim.
And, unlike yourself, I will provide them when asked.
anonymous wrote:
Such is politics.
So you say.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69345 Dec 31, 2012
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
and the lesson is?...those in power mis-use the idea of God to promote their own agendas.
The exact same way they do today.In fact, it's the exact same thing that you are doing.
Except it's what you are doing - ignoring divinely sanctioned killing to pretend your favourite religious book is chock-fulla good morals. The reality is that it is in some places, and in others it ain't. And that if it weren't for some of those people in ancient history "misusing the idea of God" as you put it, you might not have been Christian today. As they were after all the Christian ruling class who ultimately passed down the religion down the generations.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69346 Dec 31, 2012
Given that a *majority* of Americans already support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, it's hardly going against the tide to demand that the United States deal with it.
anonymous wrote:
Statistics, eh? It sure seems to me that that the voting record disagrees.
We have no voting record on this issue at the national level.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69347 Dec 31, 2012
Free from what?
Bible Belt wrote:
Free from sin and worthy of eternal life.
What is "sin"?
WhatDoesJesusDo

Hazard, KY

#69348 Dec 31, 2012
Fill the needs, for those that allow him.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69349 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The only wrong assumption was that I would consider even pulling others into it. ;)
At least you actually know what Goth is, many do not, so I have to give you credit for that. Nano has made the failed assertion many times, yet every time evidence is request it backs out like a scared child and gets others to do it's dirty work, thinking that will somehow either excuse it's lies, or make us forget that Nano started the lies in the first place.
Feel free to not respond to the bulk of this and crop it from any response so as to avoid being sucked into the web of dishonesty, I shall not blame you.
From what I've observed, Nanoanomaly and Cybele both believe in a sort of intuitive mysticism which they are working out through this anonymous forum dialog. They are not patient enough to be empirical thinkers and they aren't independent enough to keep free of the usual politics even though they would like to be.

Probably, they are both under thirty years old, and may not see their older selves looking back at them. Hopefully, we see something of our youthful determination in them. Life goes on!

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69350 Dec 31, 2012
So you're saying that you have no *objective* evidence that supports a claim that homosexuality is merely about people lusting after their own bodies. Yeah, we figured that.
Cybele wrote:
Bodies have sexual organs.
One of those sexual organs is the human brain, which determines whether we're attracted to members of the same sex or members of the opposite sex.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69351 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
The act of homosexuality is sex without reproduction. Yes, I call that a disease. It's harmful to biology. The slippery slope was always there. You just don't like the wording. That's not my problem.
So condoms are a disease and harmful to biology. Recreational hetrosexual sex is also sex without reproduction. It is also a disease and harmful to biology. Didn't figure you to be one of those fundie-type abstinence only idiots.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69352 Dec 31, 2012
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
It is called CHRISTianity after all...based on the teaching of the Christ. Even Christ chastise their barbaric ways.
Christ said not one letter of the law shall change. This is contrary to many a fundie's assertion that somehow the nasty old laws were thrown out once Jesus came riding in on his triceratops.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69353 Dec 31, 2012
WhatDoesJesusDo wrote:
Fill the needs, for those that allow him.
I need gay sex! Will he fill that need for me? Or just more of that placebo nonsense?

:-/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69354 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
More or less what I've been saying.
It doesn't have to be considered a "disease" but if it's a highly disruptive pattern of behavior, I won't contest the label. I absolutely do reserve my right to defend myself against advances by a homosexual without being accused of a hate crime.
(guy touches you on shoulder)

"Hey man, buy you a drink?"

"Nah, just waiting for my GF. Thanks anyway!"
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69355 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually methinks American Communists don't view themselves as trying to bring down the Government but rather have it operate differently. But let's face it, most of America doesn't know the difference between Communism and Stalinism. But I digress...
<quoted text>
So religion is based on genetics? Really?
<quoted text>
Well the creationists HAVE been trying to do that for over a century. So far (thankfully) they've been unsuccessful for the most part. Doesn't mean to say they won't stop trying though.
Communism is not democracy, period. Marx never addressed checks and balances, but put his faith in a natural ruling class. What you really want to address is socialism, which has never been fully defined as a method of government. It's partially Keynesian economics and partially social engineering. The economics, I like, the social engineering needs work.

You missed my point. Discrimination based on religion IS the exception. My view is that religion is inherently discriminatory, but then we wouldn't need a vote if we agreed on everything. Let religion work out the ethics of our choices, but let democracy work out the budgets, the legal protocols and the agendas of the nation.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69356 Dec 31, 2012
Bible Belt wrote:
<quoted text>The stone in my profile picture is a real Kentucky agate. I post using the name FREE SERVANT at times.
And that's the image of Jesus you say? Looks more like Barney.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69357 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
From what I've observed, Nanoanomaly and Cybele both believe in a sort of intuitive mysticism which they are working out through this anonymous forum dialog. They are not patient enough to be empirical thinkers and they aren't independent enough to keep free of the usual politics even though they would like to be.
Probably, they are both under thirty years old, and may not see their older selves looking back at them. Hopefully, we see something of our youthful determination in them. Life goes on!
You don't think that my conclusions are not based on empirical evidence? I am newtral. You know like newt gingrich
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69358 Dec 31, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And, unlike yourself, I will provide them when asked.
<quoted text>
So you say.
You've never asked. Just saying.

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 52 min DanFromSmithville 1,732
No Place For ID? 5 hr Dogen 116
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr thetruth 18,906
proof of gods existence .....or lack there of 9 hr Kong_ 20
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 hr Dogen 141,291
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 9 hr emrenil 897
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) May 3 Paul Porter1 13,692
More from around the web