Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 204712 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.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#98424 Aug 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth?
Verifiable evidence.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#98425 Aug 22, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything would have died. A flood of such proportions would have wiped out the planet to an extent that it would have taken another few million years to recuperate.
And that doesn't take into account the spectacular amount of greenhouse gasses created by EVERY mote of biomass decaying (with the exception of those on the ark - wink, wink).

from http://www.brynmawr.edu/geology/206/cleare2.h...

The source of the carbon dioxide and methane in reservoirs is rotting and decaying vegetation (St. Louis et. al., 2000). When land is flooded to create a reservoir (Figure 1), the vegetation dies and is no longer able to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via photosynthesis (St. Louis et. al., 2000). Instead, those plants decay and the stored organic carbon is converted into methane and carbon dioxide (St. Louis et. al., 2000). Fearnside explains this process:

“…reservoirs become virtual methane factories, with the rise and fall of the water level in the reservoir alternately flooding and submerging large areas of land around the shore; soft green vegetation quickly grows on the exposed mud, only to decompose under aerobic conditions at the bottom of the reservoir when the water rises again. This converts atmospheric carbon dioxide into methane, with a much higher impact on global warming than the CO2 that was removed from the atmosphere when the plants grew”(Fearnside, 2004).

The above describes the creation of a hydroelectric dam reservoir, but the same would hold true for a global flood -- yet obviously on a planetary scale.

The resulting environmental impact of the release of that amount of greenhouse gasses, combined with the LOSS of carbon/methane sinks would sterilize the planet for hundreds of millions of years, I would suspect.

Much less had this happened a mere 4500 years ago.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#98426 Aug 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Really idiot?
Why do you say so?
Apologize for being a complete asshat and I will give you the evidence.
But if you don't want to see the evidence then keep on acting like a complete and total moron.
I see...., you are the guardian of the sacred knowledge, the secret of the goo! All cults do claim the sacred knowledge.
Godlust

Chicago, IL

#98427 Aug 22, 2013
Internet Beyotch Slapper wrote:
Endgame question:
Who created the ability for creatures to evolve?
Who? Not a Bible God, thats for sure. The human brain in its current configuration cannot comprehend the "Who" in that endgame question. Heres a hint......cosmos.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#98428 Aug 22, 2013
Godlust wrote:
<quoted text>Who? Not a Bible God, thats for sure. The human brain in its current configuration cannot comprehend the "Who" in that endgame question. Heres a hint......cosmos.
Is it for sure? Or are you completely wrong? We will find out. LMAO!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98429 Aug 22, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I see...., you are the guardian of the sacred knowledge, the secret of the goo! All cults do claim the sacred knowledge.
Nope, you keep demanding evidence. You can demand things and be an asshat at the same time. So if you want the evidence you know what you have to do.

Of course if you were not a complete moron you could probably find some of it on your own.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98430 Aug 22, 2013
Oops, typing too fast and somehow I dropped the 't from can't.

So to restate it, you can't demand things and be an asshat at the same time.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#98431 Aug 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor bohart is an idiot at best.
He gets angry when his superstitions beliefs are challenged. I am always happy to supply evidence when requested. Since creationists have none a request for evidence tends to drive them a bit batty.
So your always happy to supply evidence when requested?

Proven Liar!

You can't give evidence of the life giving goo, none exists

Ha,Ha,Ha,

Once again you've proven your worthlessness. I knew you were a lying fool for the goo when you stated some time ago that ,..something that was alive ,then died couldn't come back to life, but something that was never alive could come to life.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98432 Aug 22, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
So your always happy to supply evidence when requested?
Proven Liar!
You can't give evidence of the life giving goo, none exists
Ha,Ha,Ha,
Once again you've proven your worthlessness. I knew you were a lying fool for the goo when you stated some time ago that ,..something that was alive ,then died couldn't come back to life, but something that was never alive could come to life.
Actually it does. Too bad for you that you are such an asshat.

If you won't apologize perhaps someone else will ask.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#98433 Aug 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it does. Too bad for you that you are such an asshat.
If you won't apologize perhaps someone else will ask.
And your fallacy is: ad hominem

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#98434 Aug 22, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
And that doesn't take into account the spectacular amount of greenhouse gasses created by EVERY mote of biomass decaying (with the exception of those on the ark - wink, wink).
from http://www.brynmawr.edu/geology/206/cleare2.h...
The source of the carbon dioxide and methane in reservoirs is rotting and decaying vegetation (St. Louis et. al., 2000). When land is flooded to create a reservoir (Figure 1), the vegetation dies and is no longer able to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via photosynthesis (St. Louis et. al., 2000). Instead, those plants decay and the stored organic carbon is converted into methane and carbon dioxide (St. Louis et. al., 2000). Fearnside explains this process:
“…reservoirs become virtual methane factories, with the rise and fall of the water level in the reservoir alternately flooding and submerging large areas of land around the shore; soft green vegetation quickly grows on the exposed mud, only to decompose under aerobic conditions at the bottom of the reservoir when the water rises again. This converts atmospheric carbon dioxide into methane, with a much higher impact on global warming than the CO2 that was removed from the atmosphere when the plants grew”(Fearnside, 2004).
The above describes the creation of a hydroelectric dam reservoir, but the same would hold true for a global flood -- yet obviously on a planetary scale.
The resulting environmental impact of the release of that amount of greenhouse gasses, combined with the LOSS of carbon/methane sinks would sterilize the planet for hundreds of millions of years, I would suspect.
Much less had this happened a mere 4500 years ago.
Excellent new information (new to me anyway) against a global flood. Add to all this the complete cessation of oxygen turnover carried out by all plant life that would be destroyed by a global flood. It would take more than 4500 years to recover from all of this.
TIPI

Columbus, OH

#98435 Aug 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth?
The oldest living tree is said to have 12000 years of ring information. Could a tree form more than one ring per year in some instances?

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#98436 Aug 22, 2013
TIPI wrote:
<quoted text>The oldest living tree is said to have 12000 years of ring information. Could a tree form more than one ring per year in some instances?
Yes, but a 4500 year old tree with 12,000 rings would be not just unusual, but unheard of.

What species is this?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#98437 Aug 22, 2013
TIPI wrote:
<quoted text>The oldest living tree is said to have 12000 years of ring information. Could a tree form more than one ring per year in some instances?
Yes it could and one of the reasons would be the climate.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#98438 Aug 22, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, but a 4500 year old tree with 12,000 rings would be not just unusual, but unheard of.
What species is this?
I am curious too. The oldest living tree I could find is 5,062 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_t...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98439 Aug 22, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
And your fallacy is: ad hominem
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Wrong. I did not attack bohoart to undermine his argument.

He has not argument. All ha has are false claims. I offered him evidence on a condition. It seems that he would rather be an asshat, well more hole than hat, than to see the evidence.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98440 Aug 22, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I am curious too. The oldest living tree I could find is 5,062 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_t...
They have gotten back to 12,000 years by matching tree rings.

I don't think there is a tree in existence that is that old and still alive.
Dr_Seuss

Reading, PA

#98441 Aug 23, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
They think that makes them smart.
It's been proven that dogs are much smarter then monkeys.
Yet they want to be monkeys........
Go Figure!
I wonder why dogs would want to be monkey's. Maybe so they can catch cats up a tree easier, since dogs can't climb trees ???

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#98442 Aug 23, 2013
Dr_Seuss wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder why dogs would want to be monkey's. Maybe so they can catch cats up a tree easier, since dogs can't climb trees ???
Maybe you need to watch some of these videos. There are many dogs that climb tress well.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search...
Dr_Seuss

Reading, PA

#98443 Aug 23, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you need to watch some of these videos. There are many dogs that climb tress well.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search...
Well I'll be darned! I guess there are some dogs that don't fit the mold.

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 hr Rosa_Winkel 18,449
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Chimney1 43,083
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 3 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 900
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Kenedy njoroge 151,450
Sun could not have formed as thought 12 hr Tired of YOU 7
Current Education And Its Huge Flaws Mon Bren 1
Transfer Old iPhone Data to Samsung Galaxy S7 w... Mon CarLayshia 1
More from around the web