Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222919 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#90363 May 23, 2013
Worthington wrote:
Was the creator on drugs when he "made" Blacks?
If so the creator should be stripped of rank.
Church is ok for negroes and hispanics. Dangerous
church bullshit undermines Western Civilization.
I know that you are a racist idiot, but if you believe the theory of evolution then you believe that you are descended from black people. Humans began as a species in Africa. The evolution of light skin and light hair are later evolutionary developments. They do not represent an increase in intelligence nor morals. The last time I checked nobody thought with their skin.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#90364 May 23, 2013
Becky Crossley wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought this was a sight were you debate on real objectives not about who's who. So if your not adult enough you need to get off this sight.
Judging by what you've posted to this point, you being here to 'debate' is debatable. Outside of that... whatcha got?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#90365 May 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
You are blinded by arrogance Dude.
Is it scientifically logical to assume that because YOU have not had a spiritual experience, that no one else has?
No. It is logical to assume that since not one single person out of the 7 billion currently living on this planet have been able to demonstrate such claims, there is no reason to presume such claims are valid at this time due to lack of evidence.
HTS wrote:
You are presuming that others are lying or delusional, and that only if you experienced a miraculous experience would it be valid. This supposes that no one else on earth can be trusted but you.
You propose that I am a proponent of nihilism. This is incorrect. If they were not lying or delusional then surely at least ONE of the 7 billion people on Earth could provide scientific evidence of their claims. Due to scientific evidence being objectively verifiable it would therefore have scientific support beyond mere opinion, and I would begin to at the very least tentatively trust those findings. However this has not occurred, and ultimately your complaint is that I am not taking subjective opinion based on ancient religious myths seriously.
HTS wrote:
You categorically reject all evidence of God because YOU have not personally witnessed it.
Correct. Neither has anyone else for at least 2,000 years. And even that was hear-say. I could also point to any other pseudo-scientific proposal which you may happen to agree or disagree with. UFO's. Psychics. Quantum pseudo-scientists. Alt-Med nuts. Moon-landing deniers. Each and every one of these becomes just as valid as your concept of a deity. The popularity of any one of these subjects is irrelevant to their validity as not one of them can be objectively demonstrated.
HTS wrote:
Yet you put unending faith in the words of others whom you don't know, assuming that their research which validates your religion (evolution) is valid.
Not at all. For even anti-science promoters such as yourself agree that the evidence exists, and it is one's "interpretation" of the evidence which counts. That of course is not true because interpretation is subsequently verified by testing. However you will note that those who reject evidence entirely that is known to exist will more commonly be found on forums such as this. Whereas when one reads apologetics from creationist organisations they rarely do so. A Topix fundie may deny a fossil exists. However creationist organisations will accept that the biological remains are not a fabrication. They wait until genuine researchers post their findings publicly, then offer their own opinion of what the evidence means despite being hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the finding. Which of course must fit with their pre-conceived conclusions that they already have posted on their website - Biblical inerrancy, an anti-scientific stance.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#90366 May 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Naturalism is atheism by definition.
Then you are claiming that the universe and everything in it is atheistic. That also means *every* scientific field is atheistic. Your god is incapable of doing anything natural or interfering or influencing natural phenomena in any way at all whatsoever.

Congratulations, you just made your deity COMPLETELY irrelevant.
imagine2011

Southaven, MS

#90367 May 23, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Plants need sunlight? Feh! What silly atheist evolutionist Darwinist schools have you been going to?
God is "Light" and he was hovering over the waters of the earth.

Genesis
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said,“Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#90368 May 23, 2013
Triceroy wrote:
The Behemoth that eats grass is the Rhino. The laviethen mentioned in a few places is used in a number of ways. The great serpet/Satan is symbolically referred to as the leviathen. Then there's the massive sea creature God promises to offer up as food to people who come off victorious from the beast, after the tribulations. It to is called "Leviathen". It being the most massive sea beast and edible, I believe it was talking about the whale.
Leviathan means "huge serpent" and is Adam or Satan. Behemoth means very strong and powerful and is the Messiah. He's also called a beast in Daniel 7:11
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#90369 May 23, 2013
Triceroy wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis 1:24-27
24 And God said,“Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said,“Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
THIS makes my statement valid, that the Bible makes it clear that animals came first. There's no clear time given between the creations either. Fact remains, the Bible in no way contradicts what we currently know about science or (true) history. We know now that animals came first, which could have been millions of years ago or no and we have no more than some 9,ooo years of real human history. 7 represents fullness/holy and since the Bible says God created Earth in 7 days, it meant he created it in the fulness/right amount of time. Any other suggestion is foolishness.
Sorry, but the first organisms where microbial/bacterial in nature. Also plants did not appear before the sun. The earliest human cave paintings are upward of 30-40,000 years old.

Remember, if you deny this you are denying science. This is usually the point where fundies say that's okay because God can do anything. Which is fine, but it just means that to say scientific evidence supports your position is a lie.

As for your claim that your interpretation of the Bible is better than his interpretation, the fact of the matter is that neither of you can make that claim. You believe in God, he believes in God. You read the Bible, he reads the Bible. You pray, he prays. Not one of you has any more special access to special knowledge of God than anyone else on the entire planet has. Cue fundamentalist ego and that's when theologies fracture and splinter into lots of little parts.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#90370 May 23, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you have no evidence.
Any and all scientific pitfalls are solved by Godmagic.
So by all means, feel free to believe what you want and spout it off as much as you want. But don't ignore the 9th Commandment by claiming scientific evidence supports it. That's what the rest of the liars for Jesus do around here.
I am not a Christian and the ninth commandment prohibits false witness, not lying. There's a difference, everybody lies but we're also not supposed to. Jehovahs witnesses are false, they have seen nothing. "They are their own witnesses, they see not nor know that they may be ashamed".
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#90371 May 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> There is no scientific or archaeololgical evidence that man has been on the earth for more than about 5,000 years. If man has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, where is the evidence? I'm not looking for evo-dogma, I'm looking for scientific evidence.
Every time you say you're looking for science you lie. Every time we point to scientific evidence you reject it because it doesn't line up with your particular theology anyway. So what is the point of you asking? You are being dishonest. The fact of the matter is you are confusing recorded history with evidence of human habitation. The two are NOT the same. Recorded history goes back to around 5-6,000 years. But humans were doing other things before they decided to start writing events down, such as counting things with knots made of string or painting in caves. Your theology requires that all evidence be squeezed into a tiny window as dictated by Ussher, whose assumptions are not even necessarily Biblically supported.

Newsflash - Ussher was a f cking idiot. He does not dictate reality in any way.

Sorry if you don't like it.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#90372 May 23, 2013
Triceroy wrote:
Job 41:1
"Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook or tie down its tongue with a rope?
Psalm 104:26
There the ships go to and fro, and Leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.
Isaiah 27:1
In that day, the LORD will punish with his sword-- his fierce, great and powerful sword-- Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the sea
For the idiots who doubt. Leviathan is a whale. Carbon dating is trash and Sumer is the start of our history post flood. We haven't been here that long, even if the Earth and it's animals have.
Sure. In fact the universe has only been here for 6 seconds. That's how long we've all been debating this subject for because God only poofed the universe into existence 6 seconds ago.

Prove me wrong.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#90373 May 23, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
He is but when God's people come together, God is dwelling there, especially in His Own House, the Church.
Matthew 18:20
20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#90374 May 23, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Which includes babies who haven't even learned to talk or speak yet. Apparently mercy is not high on his list for these foul criminals who cry because they want some love and attention from mom. Henceforth they shall be consigned to the depths of hell along with Stalin, Hitler and Genghis Khan.
<quoted text>
Sure he is, on Drive a Volkswagen Day, your coming apocalypse. Remember? At the moment he's just chilling until the "right time". Then he will make his presence personally known again for the entire world, something he hasn't done for 2 or 3 millenia or so.
<quoted text>
None, I am already aware of your own self-constructed Abrahamic-based theology, though I may not be up on all the petty details which I find to be largely irrelevant.
<quoted text>
Babies haven't sinned against God personally for they have yet to develop the awareness of any such concepts, much less express them. To your god "wicked" is simply anyone who does not conform to any of his petty pet-hates. To him even rational skepticism is to be punished by eternal torture.
Your theology is f cked up to the core and is completely bereft of morality.
This is why, Poeism not withstanding, you are an extreme psychopath who needs serious professional help.
VWD Day stands for Vengeance, Wrath and Destruction. God understands all of us and she is a righteous judge. I wouldn't blaspheme the name of the living God.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#90375 May 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
Your logic is grossly flawed born from the perverted mind of an atheist.
Irony meter go boom.
HTS wrote:
An eternal reward is not achieved by committing suicide, but by striving to follow the teachings in the Bible.
How do YOU know?

Oh wait - you don't.

But I guess I was right about you being a typical Christian YEC fundie creationist all along then.(shrug)

Now there's no need to be so frigging coy about it anymore, is there? Doesn't that feel better?
HTS wrote:
Furthermore, life is a gift from God, and the experience of living on earth is precious and should be cherished.
Then why do you waste so much time worshipping the afterlife then just like a good little death-cult should?(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#90376 May 23, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
Did you pray honestly believing that God is real?
Yup. But to be fair I was exceedingly young and gullible at the time. Not so much now.
imagine2011 wrote:
You have to be serious, God will not be mocked.
It never is. Your opinions of what you think God is however, they can be mocked all the time. And often are. After all your baseless religious opinions are COMPLETELY unimportant.(shrug)
imagine2011 wrote:
John 20:29
English Standard Version
SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#90377 May 23, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Gen 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light". The light of God existed before the sun and will exist after the sun, it was the first thing to be created.
If you refer to light from the early cosmic background radiation it simply wasn't strong enough. If you're referring to light from God itself then it didn't get through because of the solid ice shield that surrounded the planet. If you're saying none of this matters because Godmagic has no restrictions then science does not support your claims.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#90378 May 23, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
God is "Light" and he was hovering over the waters of the earth.
He had a hovercraft? Cool!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#90379 May 23, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>I am not a Christian and the ninth commandment prohibits false witness, not lying. There's a difference, everybody lies but we're also not supposed to. Jehovahs witnesses are false, they have seen nothing. "They are their own witnesses, they see not nor know that they may be ashamed".
Then since you have not witnessed scientific evidence you are bearing false witness. If you claim otherwise then you are lying because everybody lies even though they're not supposed to.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#90380 May 23, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>VWD Day stands for Vengeance, Wrath and Destruction. God understands all of us and she is a righteous judge.
Perhaps.

Your god however is an extreme psychopath.
susanblange wrote:
I wouldn't blaspheme the name of the living God.
Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Unless your god is a wuss that is.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#90381 May 23, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Gen 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light". The light of God existed before the sun and will exist after the sun, it was the first thing to be created.
Photons without an em source. It sounds more to me like primitive sheep herders didn't know anything about diffusion and diffraction of sunlight through the atmosphere. Do you?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#90382 May 23, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Photons without an em source. It sounds more to me like primitive sheep herders didn't know anything about diffusion and diffraction of sunlight through the atmosphere. Do you?
"God IS an EM source!!!"

If so then we finally have the beginnings of a meaningful (and hopefully coherent) definition of what (a) God is.

Could be fun!

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min Eagle 12 - 81,844
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Genesis Enigma 164,290
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr Science 2,192
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Science 33,072
Did humans come from Sturgeons? Oct 16 Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee Oct 16 Science 1
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web