Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216597 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.

HMT 123

Honolulu, HI

#117336 Jul 8, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you stupid or something?
Deliberately Obtuse.
cased by ignorance and desperation- easily turns into abuse if it continues and escalates
BTW I agree with 'subzone'(my quick type).

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#117337 Jul 8, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Laffin.
Did you know that no less a personage than Larry Niven (!) was instrumental in cleaning that comic up?
Isn't that Green Lantern?

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#117338 Jul 9, 2014
Naughtyrobot wrote:
<quoted text> Interesting. So hummingbirds just became better hummingbirds, adapted. And the flowers adapted with them. But they did not change into pigs or dogs or boys?
I think that is perhaps the most stupid comment I have seen on here and believe me I have seen some real humdingers made in the name of god dunitwiv magic

“Don't Like Bumping Your Butt?”

Since: Jul 14

Stop Hopping Down The Trail!

#117339 Jul 9, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
And so wondering proclaims his ignorance and idiocy to the world. In a debate between creationism and evolution he cannot figure out that the word "kind" that has not been defined is the word "kind" as used in the first chapter of Genesis.
Massive face palm.
i am a science buff and preach and teach science. what sets me apart from you is that when I am asked a question, science or not i try to answer it with the knowledge i have and I will not lie for science or the creationists.. you on the other hand just spout off the same ole bs of what have you read or heard which you clearly do not understand. you see things one way and one way only and that is you think you are always right. bad news little turd, you are nothing in this thread or world but just a piss ant spouting off looking for someone to bite. you keep saying in you responses “we” this ‘we” that but have you not noticed you have no “we”? it is only “you” looking the fool. the way science works is if a question or problem comes up they will try to answer it the best they can even if it is looking at it at an angle that is outside of the normal. you are just an idiot with a one track mind that only sees yourself as right. the problem is that you are wrong more than you are right but you are too stupid to see that. also you are too quick to judge a person for their opinion and when a person gives you an acceptable answer(example; of what I follow) that will passes anyone’s standards,,, you reject it because you don’t see it as right. you are just an idiot jack wagon and that is all you have evolved to be or ever will be!
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#117340 Jul 9, 2014
Naughtyrobot wrote:
<quoted text> Interesting. So hummingbirds just became better hummingbirds, adapted. And the flowers adapted with them. But they did not change into pigs or dogs or boys?
No they did not evolve into pigs and dogs.
Why are you posing this utter ridiculous question in the first place?
wondering

Morris, OK

#117341 Jul 9, 2014
Rabbit On Crack wrote:
<quoted text>
i am a science buff and preach and teach science. what sets me apart from you is that when I am asked a question, science or not i try to answer it with the knowledge i have and I will not lie for science or the creationists.. you on the other hand just spout off the same ole bs of what have you read or heard which you clearly do not understand. you see things one way and one way only and that is you think you are always right. bad news little turd, you are nothing in this thread or world but just a piss ant spouting off looking for someone to bite. you keep saying in you responses “we” this ‘we” that but have you not noticed you have no “we”? it is only “you” looking the fool. the way science works is if a question or problem comes up they will try to answer it the best they can even if it is looking at it at an angle that is outside of the normal. you are just an idiot with a one track mind that only sees yourself as right. the problem is that you are wrong more than you are right but you are too stupid to see that. also you are too quick to judge a person for their opinion and when a person gives you an acceptable answer(example; of what I follow) that will passes anyone’s standards,,, you reject it because you don’t see it as right. you are just an idiot jack wagon and that is all you have evolved to be or ever will be!
by the ay subduction zone, this is wondering.... when i am on my phone it wont let me sign in most of the time. so i go by "wondering" but rabbit on crack is me when i can sign in. i like to beat the bush and see what kind of little bugs i can bring out and you have to be the biggest bug and pest i have drug out so far. you talk crap, back nothing, spew crap, show nothing but blame everyone else.when you are clearly wrong and lying, shown wrong and lying you call it a mistake but hold everyone else that makes a mistake to a lie. what the helll do you think makes you better than anyone else on this thread that you only make mistakes but you claim everyone else lies? you are the biggest liar on this thread and also the biggest whining idiot. i do not know if you are male or female but if you are male then you are a complete jackassss and if you are female then you are a stupid biotchhh. that is the end of that story!!!!
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#117342 Jul 9, 2014
Naughtyrobot wrote:
So, did hummingbirds get long curved beaks and long tongues and the ability to hover at the same time certain flowers came along that needed them to be pollenated and just happened to have high sugar nectar and the right color to attract them? How did either the flowers or birds survive the crossover changes? Some plants depend on birds digesting the fruit before it can germinate for the next generation, how did that start?
At least a sensible question here.
Because the crossover changes are tiny steps, accumulating in thousands of generations.

Every single-generational step is too tiny to compromise the bird's or flower's survival ability.

Compare it with language.

A child born in London in the 9th century, spoke this language:
Þa wæs Hroðgare heresped gyfen, wiges weorðmynd
þæt him his winemagas georne hyrdon,
oððþæt seo geogod geweox, magodriht micel.

This child could understand his parents, kin and peers.

A child born in London today would recite the same text as:
To Hrothgar was given such glory of war,
obeyed him gladly till great grew his band, of youthful comrades.
such honor of combat, that all his kin.

This child also could understand his parents, kin and peers.

YET old Anglo-Saxon language has evolved into modern English.

And EVERY child ever born in those 1200 years could understand his parents, kin and peers.
wondering

Morris, OK

#117343 Jul 9, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
At least a sensible question here.
Because the crossover changes are tiny steps, accumulating in thousands of generations.
Every single-generational step is too tiny to compromise the bird's or flower's survival ability.
Compare it with language.
A child born in London in the 9th century, spoke this language:
Þa wæs Hroðgare heresped gyfen, wiges weorðmynd
þæt him his winemagas georne hyrdon,
oððþæt seo geogod geweox, magodriht micel.
This child could understand his parents, kin and peers.
A child born in London today would recite the same text as:
To Hrothgar was given such glory of war,
obeyed him gladly till great grew his band, of youthful comrades.
such honor of combat, that all his kin.
This child also could understand his parents, kin and peers.
YET old Anglo-Saxon language has evolved into modern English.
And EVERY child ever born in those 1200 years could understand his parents, kin and peers.
this is a total crock of crap. a person can learn language in a mere few years. it took more than a mere few years for the hummingbird. surely you can come up with a better analogy that that.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117344 Jul 9, 2014
Rabbit On Crack wrote:
<quoted text>
i am a science buff and preach and teach science. what sets me apart from you is that when I am asked a question, science or not i try to answer it with the knowledge i have and I will not lie for science or the creationists.. you on the other hand just spout off the same ole bs of what have you read or heard which you clearly do not understand. you see things one way and one way only and that is you think you are always right. bad news little turd, you are nothing in this thread or world but just a piss ant spouting off looking for someone to bite. you keep saying in you responses “we” this ‘we” that but have you not noticed you have no “we”? it is only “you” looking the fool. the way science works is if a question or problem comes up they will try to answer it the best they can even if it is looking at it at an angle that is outside of the normal. you are just an idiot with a one track mind that only sees yourself as right. the problem is that you are wrong more than you are right but you are too stupid to see that. also you are too quick to judge a person for their opinion and when a person gives you an acceptable answer(example; of what I follow) that will passes anyone’s standards,,, you reject it because you don’t see it as right. you are just an idiot jack wagon and that is all you have evolved to be or ever will be!
Wow! You are a Rabbit on Crack.

You are also extremely ignorant of science. Show me when I have been wrong on a scientific claim. Now I do get quite a few of the idiots ticked off on this forum because I will stoop down to their level of idiocy. I will gladly call a moron a moron, especially once they have been rude to me or have made one too many idiotic mistakes.

Now you have made several idiotic mistakes in this post of yours. But I will let that go for now. Do you want to debate the facts and figures or are you going to earn a spate of insults from me too?

So far rather than argue the evidence every creationist has run away from me. That is why I gladly point out when they are being dishonest and how poorly that reflects upon them in regards to the Commandments they supposedly believe in.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117345 Jul 9, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
this is a total crock of crap. a person can learn language in a mere few years. it took more than a mere few years for the hummingbird. surely you can come up with a better analogy that that.
Wow!!!

You did not understand his analogy at all.

Let me try the same analogy from a different approach.

Everyone knows that Spanish, French, and Italian all arose from Latin. A Latin speaker could not understand a Spaniard, Frenchman, or an Italian and vice versa, though they could all learn each others languages in time. The point was that the change from Latin to these other languages was a slow EVOLUTIONARY one. No Latin speaking mother ever raised a Spanish speaking son. The languages the two spoke was always the same. Now the languages both of them spoke was Latin to start with, but over the many generations the language changed. At some point you would say their language was not Spanish, nor was it Latin, it was something else.

The same applies to the hummingbird. Biologists are very sure that hummingbirds are related to swifts. And the forerunner of hummingbirds would have looked like a swift of today. Now over the many million years, and they project back to roughly 40 million years ago, the species slowly changed as they evolved to consume more and more nectar. They are still insectivores today. That is where they get their protein from, and a wise person would have asked themselves "how can hummingbirds exit on nectar alone?" and would have been halfway to solving the problem right there. At no point did a non-hummingbird mother lay hummingbird eggs. The change was so gradual you would have thought that there was none until you looked at all of the change added together. It is really just that simple. Early on more nectar consumption meant that they could spend more time going after insects and nectar also gave them the ability to fly faster and faster. Again, these were slow gradual changes.
wondering

Morris, OK

#117346 Jul 9, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow!!!
You did not understand his analogy at all.
Let me try the same analogy from a different approach.
Everyone knows that Spanish, French, and Italian all arose from Latin. A Latin speaker could not understand a Spaniard, Frenchman, or an Italian and vice versa, though they could all learn each others languages in time. The point was that the change from Latin to these other languages was a slow EVOLUTIONARY one. No Latin speaking mother ever raised a Spanish speaking son. The languages the two spoke was always the same. Now the languages both of them spoke was Latin to start with, but over the many generations the language changed. At some point you would say their language was not Spanish, nor was it Latin, it was something else.
The same applies to the hummingbird. Biologists are very sure that hummingbirds are related to swifts. And the forerunner of hummingbirds would have looked like a swift of today. Now over the many million years, and they project back to roughly 40 million years ago, the species slowly changed as they evolved to consume more and more nectar. They are still insectivores today. That is where they get their protein from, and a wise person would have asked themselves "how can hummingbirds exit on nectar alone?" and would have been halfway to solving the problem right there. At no point did a non-hummingbird mother lay hummingbird eggs. The change was so gradual you would have thought that there was none until you looked at all of the change added together. It is really just that simple. Early on more nectar consumption meant that they could spend more time going after insects and nectar also gave them the ability to fly faster and faster. Again, these were slow gradual changes.
language is learned at the speed of light compared to the time of evolution so yes that was and is a very poor and sad analogy. If you follow and support evolution you will see the point. a man speaking only english today can learn spanish in mere weeks but he will not evolve for 1000’s of years. comprenda omigo or do you entender espanol?
wondering

Morris, OK

#117347 Jul 9, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow!!!
You did not understand his analogy at all.
Let me try the same analogy from a different approach.
Everyone knows that Spanish, French, and Italian all arose from Latin. A Latin speaker could not understand a Spaniard, Frenchman, or an Italian and vice versa, though they could all learn each others languages in time. The point was that the change from Latin to these other languages was a slow EVOLUTIONARY one. No Latin speaking mother ever raised a Spanish speaking son. The languages the two spoke was always the same. Now the languages both of them spoke was Latin to start with, but over the many generations the language changed. At some point you would say their language was not Spanish, nor was it Latin, it was something else.
The same applies to the hummingbird. Biologists are very sure that hummingbirds are related to swifts. And the forerunner of hummingbirds would have looked like a swift of today. Now over the many million years, and they project back to roughly 40 million years ago, the species slowly changed as they evolved to consume more and more nectar. They are still insectivores today. That is where they get their protein from, and a wise person would have asked themselves "how can hummingbirds exit on nectar alone?" and would have been halfway to solving the problem right there. At no point did a non-hummingbird mother lay hummingbird eggs. The change was so gradual you would have thought that there was none until you looked at all of the change added together. It is really just that simple. Early on more nectar consumption meant that they could spend more time going after insects and nectar also gave them the ability to fly faster and faster. Again, these were slow gradual changes.
lets test your knowledge that you can't Google. on average(if there is such) how many mutations or years(your choice) does it take to change from one species to a different species, what is required to call it a different species and what changes need to be seen before they are classified as a new species?

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#117348 Jul 9, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
this is a total crock of crap. a person can learn language in a mere few years. it took more than a mere few years for the hummingbird. surely you can come up with a better analogy that that.
Language develops/evolves or do you expect that an English speaker of today would be able to understand a 9th century English.

A hummingbirds offspring would have similar traits to its parents. Do you expect them to be the same as earlier evolutional steps?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117349 Jul 9, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
language is learned at the speed of light compared to the time of evolution so yes that was and is a very poor and sad analogy. If you follow and support evolution you will see the point. a man speaking only english today can learn spanish in mere weeks but he will not evolve for 1000’s of years. comprenda omigo or do you entender espanol?
How was this a "sad analogy". Just because even a simple analogy was too difficult for your puny brain to understand does not make it a "sad analogy". We are not talking about "learning" a language. Remember this is an analogy and is meant to try to help get an idea across.

Wow, what a tard. And yes, I do understand Spanish better than you. There are three errors in your sad attempt to insult me, and I can see that with only high school level Spanish from many years ago.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117350 Jul 9, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
lets test your knowledge that you can't Google. on average(if there is such) how many mutations or years(your choice) does it take to change from one species to a different species, what is required to call it a different species and what changes need to be seen before they are classified as a new species?
That is a poorly formed question since there are several different definitions of "species". First off how do you want to define up this supposed limitation. Scientists know that there are no clear barriers. That is why they have different definitions of what a species is and they know that they are not perfect since life evolves.

All your question really does is to illustrate that you have no idea what a species is.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117351 Jul 9, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
by the ay subduction zone, this is wondering.... when i am on my phone it wont let me sign in most of the time. so i go by "wondering" but rabbit on crack is me when i can sign in. i like to beat the bush and see what kind of little bugs i can bring out and you have to be the biggest bug and pest i have drug out so far. you talk crap, back nothing, spew crap, show nothing but blame everyone else.when you are clearly wrong and lying, shown wrong and lying you call it a mistake but hold everyone else that makes a mistake to a lie. what the helll do you think makes you better than anyone else on this thread that you only make mistakes but you claim everyone else lies? you are the biggest liar on this thread and also the biggest whining idiot. i do not know if you are male or female but if you are male then you are a complete jackassss and if you are female then you are a stupid biotchhh. that is the end of that story!!!!
I thought that the Rabbit's idiocy seemed familiar. Truly most of the time that you post as "Rabbit on crack" I ignore your posts since they are loaded with idiocy.

And you don't like the fact that I will call you an idiot when you are being an idiot. What scientific fact have I got wrong? Are you talking about when you were an idiot and could not understand that I was finding a working definition for "kind" and then you totally failed to do so? Even others had to come in and point out what an idiot that you were being.

It is nice to see where the crack Rabbit gets his ideas from.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#117352 Jul 9, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
language is learned at the speed of light compared to the time of evolution so yes that was and is a very poor and sad analogy. If you follow and support evolution you will see the point. a man speaking only english today can learn spanish in mere weeks but he will not evolve for 1000’s of years. comprenda omigo or do you entender espanol?
Time – why does the fundy always misrepresent time? Time is extremely flexible to evolution

Take a look at my avatar image, the skull of a cro magnon male, very similar you would think to modern humans and true, modern humans are their classification. However it is about 13% larger than the average today with a 10% larger brain pan and much thicker bone structure, that in around 30,000 years.

Pygmy three-toed sloth, less than 10,000 years to evolve for the full size sloth to its pigmy form

Ahh 30,000 and 10,000 years you say

In 50 years of study the peppered moth has evolved from a cream and brown wing pattern to today where 98% of the species numbers have completely black wings

Langkawi bent-toed gecko, a scientific curiosity because evolutionary changes in skin colour can be seen on a generation by generation basis and each generation is a matter of months. Other lizards are also being studied for their speed of evolution, example depluming their digestive tract to cope with differing foods.
wondering

Morris, OK

#117353 Jul 9, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How was this a "sad analogy". Just because even a simple analogy was too difficult for your puny brain to understand does not make it a "sad analogy". We are not talking about "learning" a language. Remember this is an analogy and is meant to try to help get an idea across.
Wow, what a tard. And yes, I do understand Spanish better than you. There are three errors in your sad attempt to insult me, and I can see that with only high school level Spanish from many years ago.
it is as sad as idiots like you saying gravity is fact and evolution is fact. bad comparison! any moron can go and throw a rock in the air and see that gravity is has an effect. it is not that simple with gravity or evolution. comparing evolution as fact because gravity is fact only shows your weakness and shows that you do not understand either one of them at all. we still have much to learn about both so as we uns=derstand them at this point, we can not claim either is fact.

for there is much to be learned about both and it is too early to call either one of them as we understand them a “fact”!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#117354 Jul 9, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain how it "comes from the family".
Are the families in Muslim nations different form those in the west then, because WE (NOT YOU) treat women as being equal to men, Muslims do not.
Is your family different form others?
Because you treat women unequally, many other families don't.
Now, HOW come that you say that women should be obedient and submissive and WE don't.
What's the difference.
Er, let's have a look.
We both have families but .......(fill in the gap).
English do originated in England. Why would i listen your trash. The head of every homes are the men.
wondering

Morris, OK

#117355 Jul 9, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Time – why does the fundy always misrepresent time? Time is extremely flexible to evolution
Take a look at my avatar image, the skull of a cro magnon male, very similar you would think to modern humans and true, modern humans are their classification. However it is about 13% larger than the average today with a 10% larger brain pan and much thicker bone structure, that in around 30,000 years.
Pygmy three-toed sloth, less than 10,000 years to evolve for the full size sloth to its pigmy form
Ahh 30,000 and 10,000 years you say
In 50 years of study the peppered moth has evolved from a cream and brown wing pattern to today where 98% of the species numbers have completely black wings
Langkawi bent-toed gecko, a scientific curiosity because evolutionary changes in skin colour can be seen on a generation by generation basis and each generation is a matter of months. Other lizards are also being studied for their speed of evolution, example depluming their digestive tract to cope with differing foods.
i am glad you brought that up. do tell us in detail, with backing evidence, why some species evolve faster than others. what is the driving force of evolution that makes it work faster here and slower there? i know but do you?

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
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 1 hr In Six Days 625
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr SoE 48,383
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 5 hr Porkncheese 179,706
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 5 hr Porkncheese 6
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 11 hr scientia potentia... 154,610
Science News (Sep '13) 20 hr _Susan_ 3,980
News Does Mike Pence Believe in Evolution? Thu scientia potentia... 9
More from around the web