Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221445 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

Macclesfield, UK

#85108 Apr 5, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Attached find portions of the final report from the ICR “RATE”
Your liars for Jesus were refuted when they admitted to lying for Jesus and admitted that evidence was completely and utterly totally superfluous to their position.

You share their position.

Too bad.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#85109 Apr 5, 2013
Mary Magdalena wrote:
<quoted text>
"Plus we already know that Jesus was not well documented, and Charles agreed. "
Too funny! What lies do you believe and what lies do you know are lies?
The fact that you claim that non-contemporary evidence is direct evidence of Jesus. Even your own source doesn't support that.

Not that it worries me at all, I'm quite happy to have Jesus walking around post the turn of the century 1BC-1AD. Heck, even have him walking on water and stuff if you like. It still has no bearing on the validity of science you reject for theological reasons.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#85110 Apr 5, 2013
Mary Magdalena wrote:
<quoted text>
"H. G. Wells, British writer, 1866-1946
Hmm. Those dates CERTAINLY aren't contemporary.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#85111 Apr 5, 2013
Mary Magdalena wrote:
<quoted text>
"What evidence do you have that he was not a Christian?"
The fact that you'll be spending some time with him.
M&M
Since your prediction has not yet bore fruit it does not pass the muster as evidence.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#85112 Apr 5, 2013
Mary Magdalena wrote:
<quoted text>
I do have evidence. I win! YA
Sure you do.

So why haven't you presented it yet instead of spamming a shitload of apologetics?
Mark

United States

#85113 Apr 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Your liars for Jesus were refuted when they admitted to lying for Jesus and admitted that evidence was completely and utterly totally superfluous to their position.
You share their position.
Too bad.(shrug)
There are a number of folks on the secular science side that are not shrugging, but of course they took the time to read and evaluate the information that was attached and have the background to understand it. The concept of a sweeping speed shift in the uniform isochron rates in the past, based on conflicting rates in non-isotope related measurements in the same formations is real. Some think this is healthy research, I respect their honesty.

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#85114 Apr 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There's also this other little thing that scientists do - they TEST scientific concepts. That uh, kinda makes a difference.(shrug)
Anybody who thinks they don't have preexisting biases and can do totally unbiased scientific inquiry is severely deluded. We see what we want to see all the time.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#85115 Apr 5, 2013
Tinka wrote:
They roamed the ground far before there ever was Television Tribal measures were that for the hunt of 4 legged animals not that which walked on two...
It was that for life measures to hunt for starvation not to, to this day?
rAMEN

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#85116 Apr 5, 2013
Mary Magdalena wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you mr. tick are wrong yet again.
M&M
You have evidence of God???

May I 'see' it?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#85117 Apr 5, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Anybody who thinks they don't have preexisting biases and can do totally unbiased scientific inquiry is severely deluded. We see what we want to see all the time.

Hogwash , peer review is not a mass hallucination shared by independent researchers. It is however a consensus of minds in a concerted effort to find the truth. What ever bias is held is destroyed by the many eyes that must see the same exact thing.
If there is conflict there is no consensus, if there is consensus
there is no conflict. Except by unvalidated accusation , exactly like yours which has zero merit.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#85118 Apr 5, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a number of folks on the secular science side that are not shrugging, but of course they took the time to read and evaluate the information that was attached and have the background to understand it. The concept of a sweeping speed shift in the uniform isochron rates in the past, based on conflicting rates in non-isotope related measurements in the same formations is real. Some think this is healthy research, I respect their honesty.
Then you respect nothing for they are not honest. The information has already been evaluated before the fundies even wrote their apologetics. There are two models - one involves radioactive decay at known rates, another sterilizes the entire universe. Only one of these interpretations is valid, especially in light of the fact the latter requires invisible Jewish magic to save it. Scientists have already tried accelerating radioactive decay by subjecting compounds to intense temperatures, the resulting changes being an observable but ultimately negligible difference in the appearance of age. Like you your fellow liars for Jesus ignore the fact that their position undermines itself, which is why you were refuted long ago.

You cannot claim science proves science is wrong therefore Goddidit with magic. Yet that is precisely what you continue to do. But then if you didn't carry on lying for Jesus then you would not be an apologist.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#85119 Apr 5, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Anybody who thinks they don't have preexisting biases and can do totally unbiased scientific inquiry is severely deluded. We see what we want to see all the time.
Yes, that's because you are a creationist. Whereby testing helps remove bias. Now, if evolution involved merely a small group of people with vehement opinions and very little in the way of scientific support then perhaps you'd have a point. However that far more accurately applies to the creationist movement. Since biology on the other hand is supported by every major scientific institution on the planet and supported by literally thousands of scientists and hundreds of thousands of scientifically peer-reviewed published papers on the subject along with numerous practical applications ranging from medicine to agriculture.

Of course it's entirely possible that all biology is wrong cuz everything was all done differently by an invisible Jew using magic.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#85120 Apr 5, 2013
Mary Magdalena wrote:
<quoted text>
Did Jesus Really Exist?
By Paul L. Maier, The Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University
"No, he didn't!" some skeptics claim, thinking that this is a quick, powerful lever with which to pry people away from "the fable of Christianity." But the lever crumbles at its very first use. In fact, there is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth certainly lived than for most famous figures of the ancient past. This evidence is of two kinds: internal and external, or, if you will, sacred and secular. In both cases, the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by "the village atheist," bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation.
Read much more By Paul L. Maier, The Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University
“The proposition that "Jesus Christ" never existed relies on much more than simply stating that we don't have evidence for his existence or that the Gospels are unbelievable. Showing that the story of Jesus Christ is not based on a person in any meaningful way requires showing that the story of Jesus Christ is better explained as having developed through non-historical methods than it is through historical methods.

We can identify literary sources and traditions that are not only capable of providing all of the material for the Jesus story, but indeed it is clear that the Jesus story is developed from these source materials, and this fact undermines the possibility that the stories are based on observed historical events.

If the crucifixion of Jesus were based on an observed historical event, then we should not expect that virtually every line of the crucifixion narrative comes from existing Hebrew scriptures (including themes that were mistranslated in the Greek sources that were used).

Not only does the scriptural basis of the Jesus stories undermine their historical credibility, but we also have historical facts, or lack thereof, which corroborate Jesus' absence of existence….

….Not only can Christianity be explained without a real historical Jesus at its core, but the historical facts that we do have are best explained if Jesus never existed.”

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#85121 Apr 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>is Klingon or Vulcan one of those eight?
Not yet...
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

#85122 Apr 5, 2013
@ Tinka

What??!!

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#85123 Apr 5, 2013
Mary Magdalena wrote:
You are a self proclaimed ape (smirk)
I am not. Why? Because I am mankind
When you make statements like this, you are just demonstrating a level of ignorance that really undercuts any further argument you might make.

It's the equivalent of saying: "I'm not a mammal, I'm human"
Or "I'm not an animal with a spinal cord, I'm human".

I'm going to go ahead and assume you don't understand why either of those two statements poses a problem and explain it to you.

You have mammary glands, therefore you are a mammal. All humans are mammals.

You have a spinal cord, all humans have spinal cords.

You can be both things, they are not contradictory.

You are an ape. All humans are apes. To claim you aren't is just to demonstrate a profound ignorance of what the word means.
(Smirk)
I find it endlessly amusing that you would "smirk" after displaying your own ignorance.

Seriously, when we read posts like this, we think about the mentally deficient people who ride the little buses. The people who smear their own sh1t in their hair and proclaim: "I'm pretty! I'm pretty!".

No, M. You aren't pretty. You have sh1t in your hair.

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#85124 Apr 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. This explains why you're 150 years out of date.(shrug)
See back in his day, "They haven't found the missing link yet!" was a valid argument.
Today anyone with the slightest inkling about science knows it's about a dumb an argument as you could possibly get.

I pointed out the narcissism of some scientists. What 150 years out of date. Today we have "scientists" that think everyone should believe everything that comes out of thier mouths as fact.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#85125 Apr 6, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>There are no absolutes.
Come on man! You got to do better than this. May I ask, how did you (personally) conclude this or who taught you this? Who the heck is teaching you people this or how are you (personally) scientifically concluding this using your scientific method?
THIS IS NOT GOOD and it’s not a laughing matter either, because the majority people I meet and talk to hold the same view as you.

They even taught this in my Ethics class in college! If the majority of the people think like this as a whole (which I think they do) we have a serious problem as a civilization.
Teaching and speaking in non-absolute truths means you can’t come to a final answer and this is why there is so much confusion, wars and dis-order on this planet. Telling people there are no absolute truths that mean anything goes (nothing but opinions) and it does not work like this.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#85126 Apr 6, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> That still does'nt count, like i said, people of historical importance like them wrote and talked about Christ. Like i earlier said, there were Jewish conspiracies, using the Roman strong holds to stop the whole Jesus issue, that was why there was no proper documentation after his death on earth.
No, what counts is that you throw names around but when one of your claimed sources is checked, its bogus.

What you have now done is wrap yourself in a perfectly circular, self-referencing loop. Now the lack of evidence for Jesus is just more evidence of Jesus! Barking mad.

Sure, there MAY have been a conspiracy to explain why there is NO reliable evidence that a miracle man who was really God Himself walked the earth.

Or, more likely by a million to one, there was a reformist Jewish rabbi who got into trouble for stirring things up and a bunch of wildly inflated stories about him not even recorded until decades after his death, by which time the stories had grown out of all proportion to reality. Not surprising in a culture already prepared by centuries of expectation that some Messiah was supposed to emerge.

Nowadays people expect Aliens and there are many witnesses for them, but you don't believe those do you? Or is the lack of good evidence just something that the Aliens or the Government have carefully arranged? Can you even see the parallel?

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#85127 Apr 6, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
I pointed out the narcissism of some scientists. What 150 years out of date. Today we have "scientists" that think everyone should believe everything that comes out of thier mouths as fact.
Yeah they sure do and I got something special for these pseudo-scientific researchers and scientist, especially when they promote the origin of species as not being fixed, because if you are talking about reality and claim this is how it supposed to be, this affect every-body way of living because people be putting their trust into the so called scientific leaders.

First of all people need to know find the truths themselves and they don’t and this is the problem right here. All these people who are rejecting the absolute truths I put out with simplicity or nothing but regurgitaters (mimicks) of the so called scientific researchers, scientist they so trust!

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 min Subduction Zone 30,146
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 2 hr yehoshooah adam 3,793
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr 15th Dalai Lama 70,135
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr ChromiuMan 161,443
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 6 hr Paul Scott 146
Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent? 12 hr Subduction Zone 20
G-d versus Evolution? 14 hr Dogen 21
More from around the web