Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 168472 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

#35307 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol Classic. "Wow. Aren't you Mr Current Events!"
Dear brain-damaged marmoset, a truth is a truth regardless of the length of time that elapses. Or, are you suggesting that the theory of gravity has changed or is likely tochange? Well, be assured it hasn't, as long as your fat ass is pointing to the ground, ok, you ridiculous clown?
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol Classic. "Wow. Aren't you Mr Current Events!"
Dear brain-damaged marmoset, a truth is a truth regardless of the length of time that elapses. Or, are you suggesting that the theory of gravity has changed or is likely tochange? Well, be assured it hasn't, as long as your fat ass is pointing to the ground, ok, you ridiculous clown?
Actually Newton's "law" (actually a theory) of gravity HAS changed, all the way back when Einstein came up with relativity. And that theory in turn is being replaced by quantum mechanics.

But the truth is that the scientific validity of evolution is not affected by Nebraska man.

Did it demonstrate evolution? No

Did it falsify evolution? No.

Do you have a better alternative that does a better job of explaining biodiversity? Still waiting.

Until then you got zip.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#35308 Jul 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
The Dude, why did you repeat your post about Nebraska Man?
Please do not confuse me with... THE DESTROYER.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#35309 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Comprehension problem much? Or are you just being willfully disingenuous?
This is about sloppy methodology that is used to uphold ToE. And, now also about the FACT that Nebraska Man was widely accepted among the evolution community.
Psst...let me clue you in on something. I don't want to know about the copious BS found in the main evolution brainwashing organ known as talkorigins. But, please provide evidence that the following is untrue.
"In 1917, Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, unearthed one molar tooth in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. In 1922, he sent the tooth to Dr. Henry Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, who claimed that it belonged to an early hominid and determined that the tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. He wrote Cook saying: "I sat down with the tooth and I said to myself:'It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid'" (Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 1922, "Hesperopithecus, the first anthropoid primate found in America," American Museum Novitates, 37, p. 2 ). One month later, Osborn announced that Hesperopithecus haroldcookii was the first anthropoid ape from America; a missing link in human evolution.
Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy of Manchester, England, supported Osborn saying, "I think the balance of probability is in favour of the view that the tooth found in the Pliocene beds of Nebraska may possibly have belonged to a primitive member of the Human Family" (Smith, The Evolution of Man 1927)"
P.s. Question denied. I'm not falling for your attempts to widen this.
You haven't admitted that paleontologists use sloppy methodology to foist their assumptions onto the public.
Alright.

I'll play.

YES. For approximately FIVE YEARS, close to 100 years ago, a very small minority of paleontologists misidentified a fossil tooth as belonging to a hominid.

The vast majority of their paleontologist peers were skeptical, or downright critical from the start as to this fossil being evidence for a hominid.

I again ask, do you have any POSITIVE evidence for your position as a YEC/OEC?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#35310 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Dude!:( You're too easy. NO. What I've demonstrated is: That if the rest of that PIG wasn't found, to this very day you'd believe in Nebraska Man. Why? Due to the sloppy, slipshod assumptive methods used to this very day by paleontologists to uphold ToE. Get it, moron?
If that was the case you wouldn't know about the pig.

But keep beating up straw-men, o great destroyer.
The Dude Destroyer

Australia

#35311 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Actually Newton's "law" (actually a theory) of gravity HAS changed, all the way back when Einstein came up with relativity. And that theory in turn is being replaced by quantum mechanics.
But the truth is that the scientific validity of evolution is not affected by Nebraska man.
Did it demonstrate evolution? No
Did it falsify evolution? No.
Do you have a better alternative that does a better job of explaining biodiversity? Still waiting.
Until then you got zip.
Does your ever-widening posterior still point to the ground? If so, zip it, you insufferable fool.

Not relevant. You haven't addressed the sloppy, slipshod methodology that's employed. You haven't refuted my sources. Thing is, O lover of novelty, you and your ilk are ready to jump on the bandwagon with every new so-called "discovery", but are always hesitant to admit you're wrong. You remind me of a character called the "Fonz" on this old show I saw on cable. "I was wrrrr...wrrrrr...wrrrr wrrrr...wrrr." He just can't admit he's wrong.:D "No care taken, no responsibility accepted" - thus is the way of pseudo-science.
The Dude Destroyer

Australia

#35312 Jul 24, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright.
I'll play.
YES. For approximately FIVE YEARS, close to 100 years ago, a very small minority of paleontologists misidentified a fossil tooth as belonging to a hominid.
The vast majority of their paleontologist peers were skeptical, or downright critical from the start as to this fossil being evidence for a hominid.
I again ask, do you have any POSITIVE evidence for your position as a YEC/OEC?
Problem. Your statement was riddled with BS. Try again. Try to employ a thing called "honesty."

Problem with logic. Time is irrelevant. Point is: if the rest of that PIG wasn't found, it would have continued to be foisted on the public as being "Nebrasks Man." Ergo, major problem with your methodology = you and your ilk can't be trusted. And, in addition, everyone knows that lying is second nature to you and your ilk and that you CAN'T ever admit you're wrong, as evidenced by the copious, artfully framed excuses that the muppets, like you, are programmed to respond with.

Moreover, it was widely accepted by the evolution community and esteemed members of science were lauding it.

Get lost.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#35313 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Does your ever-widening posterior still point to the ground? If so, zip it, you insufferable fool.
Not relevant. You haven't addressed the sloppy, slipshod methodology that's employed. You haven't refuted my sources. Thing is, O lover of novelty, you and your ilk are ready to jump on the bandwagon with every new so-called "discovery", but are always hesitant to admit you're wrong. You remind me of a character called the "Fonz" on this old show I saw on cable. "I was wrrrr...wrrrrr...wrrrr wrrrr...wrrr." He just can't admit he's wrong.:D "No care taken, no responsibility accepted" - thus is the way of pseudo-science.
What in the hell is wrong with you?? We all know that Nebraska, Piltdown AND (you're favorite) Montana were incorrect. No one's disputing that. Do you think that pointing that a handful of researchers were wrong 100 years ago negates all of the science since then? Those errors were corrected by scientists and not by folks like you.

If that's the best you've got, you lose. Huge.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#35314 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Problem. Your statement was riddled with BS. Try again. Try to employ a thing called "honesty."
Problem with logic. Time is irrelevant. Point is: if the rest of that PIG wasn't found, it would have continued to be foisted on the public as being "Nebrasks Man." Ergo, major problem with your methodology = you and your ilk can't be trusted. And, in addition, everyone knows that lying is second nature to you and your ilk and that you CAN'T ever admit you're wrong, as evidenced by the copious, artfully framed excuses that the muppets, like you, are programmed to respond with.
Moreover, it was widely accepted by the evolution community and esteemed members of science were lauding it.
Get lost.
You're full of crap. Period. And you lie.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#35315 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Problem. Your statement was riddled with BS. Try again. Try to employ a thing called "honesty."
Problem with logic. Time is irrelevant. Point is: if the rest of that PIG wasn't found, it would have continued to be foisted on the public as being "Nebrasks Man." Ergo, major problem with your methodology = you and your ilk can't be trusted.
The "Problem with Logic" is yours. Time most CERTAINLY is relevant, especially with regards to science. You would want to stop time at the point that those few scientists that DID accept the tooth as evidence for early man. In the days of Nebraska Man, the five years it took to FULLY refute the "finding" was almost instantaneous. That is blatently dishonest.
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text> And, in addition, everyone knows that lying is second nature to you and your ilk and that you CAN'T ever admit you're wrong, as evidenced by the copious, artfully framed excuses that the muppets, like you, are programmed to respond with.
That is exactly wrong. Science is resplendant with examples where it has shown previous "known facts" to be incorrect. Science is always seeking to correct itself.
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Moreover, it was widely accepted by the evolution community and esteemed members of science were lauding it.
Yeah.

Except that it wasn't "widely accepted", otherwise "we" would have ignored the evidence that "we" (not the clergy of the day) found that shed doubt on the veracity of the tooth's REAL origins.

And just to remind you, it was SCIENCE, who in a relatively quick time for the day, discredited the notion that this fossil tooth was of hominid origin.
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>Get lost.
Sorry, no.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#35316 Jul 24, 2012
forreal wrote:
<quoted text>If any one is pushing anything on Kids its atheists they are always trying to push or shove dead bones into kids!All animals bone molestors have ruin kids that why there are so many Gangs in America killing eachother!Ted do yourself a favor attend a church service and see your kids get polite!
You really can't seem to get off that horse, even though it's glue.

My first biology teacher was a priest in a parochial school. Later biology teachers include a deacon and regular church-goers. in fact I don't recall a single atheist teaching a single biology class.

Second, what kids are being taught is science. You haven't managed to cobble together a single coherent objection to science, for all your uncoherent ramblings. You not only do not understand sceince, you have proven that you are clueless about your own religious beliefs.

As for politeness, you haven't met my kids, so as usual you are making baseless accusations.

As for going to church, did that, got the tee-shirt, and found it completely unnecessary.
The Dude Destroyer

Australia

#35317 Jul 24, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
What in the hell is wrong with you?? We all know that Nebraska, Piltdown AND (you're favorite) Montana were incorrect. No one's disputing that. Do you think that pointing that a handful of researchers were wrong 100 years ago negates all of the science since then? Those errors were corrected by scientists and not by folks like you.
If that's the best you've got, you lose. Huge.
Your lack of ability to think clearly is truly staggering. One could easily be inclined to ask, "What is Sam Hill is wrong with you?"

If you had a workable intellect, you wouldn't categorize Piltdown Man with Nebraska Man, which, by the way, is my "favorite." I see that you are still peeved that you didn't even know the difference until well into this annihilation. C'est la vie!:D

Your complete disconnect with reality refuses to allow you to admit that Nebraska Man speaks to a sloppy methodology that is employed to this very day. It shall be repeated, because of the overeager zealots that so desperately want to find proofs to support their religion called "Darwinian Evolution." To this end, they have regularly employed "magic" in order to take mere fragments of bones and manufacture beings of their choosing out of them.

Now, try to think, please. A fraud, such as in the case of Piltdown Man, cannot be carry the same culpability as a mistake due to a bad methodology, which does not in any way equate to "science."

I hope this clears this up for for you. If not, feel free to pick my brain for a better understanding of how to employ logic as you lurch from one BS "discovery" to another. Oh! Yeah. There's this delightful chap with an electronic voice that had this "theory", but *cue the electronic voice* "I was wrong, and there are Klingons on the starboard bow, by the way." :D

Yep, another complete crock due to minds that have totally lost the plot. Now, there is a wonderful "collider" out there. I suggest you collide your gray matter with that of a newt --- couldn't be a worse result than we have already, eh?
The Dude Destroyer

Australia

#35318 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If that was the case you wouldn't know about the pig.
But keep beating up straw-men, o great destroyer.
Yes, we'd just have people telling us Nebraska man is real. You suck at logic. No offense, it goes hand-in-hand with those who fall for pseudo-science.

No, I'd prefer to avoid straw men, like this: "If that was the case you wouldn't know about the pig."

But Dude, baby! Did those esteemed men of science make those statements? ahahaha And, you did admit the sloppiness. You're well on the way to being tamed. Remember: You are the one looking like a fool, BECAUSE you refuse to address my points. Dude, I feel you're older than me, 18, but take some advice. Curb your tongue and cease your BS, because if you don't people like me just love to take you to task.:)

Now, I'd just like to point out to you that NONE of your tactics will ever work on me. I've responded to all of you, and I'm "on message." You shan't divert me. This is quite funny, because anyone looking at this sees that your lot are desperate to change the subject. Very telling, indeed.

It's ok, you don't need to officially admit defeat. It freakin' obvious!

Now, I'm getting tired and I don't particularly like textually beating up on old men, so I may wander off soon.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#35319 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we'd just have people telling us Nebraska man is real. You suck at logic. No offense, it goes hand-in-hand with those who fall for pseudo-science.
No, I'd prefer to avoid straw men, like this: "If that was the case you wouldn't know about the pig."
But Dude, baby! Did those esteemed men of science make those statements? ahahaha And, you did admit the sloppiness. You're well on the way to being tamed. Remember: You are the one looking like a fool, BECAUSE you refuse to address my points. Dude, I feel you're older than me, 18, but take some advice. Curb your tongue and cease your BS, because if you don't people like me just love to take you to task.:)
Now, I'd just like to point out to you that NONE of your tactics will ever work on me. I've responded to all of you, and I'm "on message." You shan't divert me. This is quite funny, because anyone looking at this sees that your lot are desperate to change the subject. Very telling, indeed.
It's ok, you don't need to officially admit defeat. It freakin' obvious!
Now, I'm getting tired and I don't particularly like textually beating up on old men, so I may wander off soon.
...and yet you fail to acknowledge that it WAS SCIENCE AS A WHOLE that discredited the incorrect assumptions made by a scant few in all of the cases that have been brought up.

You've won nothing.

And THAT is "freakin' obvious".

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#35320 Jul 24, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Cut to the chase and that is all you have. A poorly witnessed claim "documented" decades after the event, with an incredibly strong emotional bias in wanting to believe it is true because you think it makes your own immortality possible.
There are hundreds of such claims throughout human history and myth, believed at various times by various cults. Considering that the source of these claims has been discredited in many respects scientifically (biology, astronomy, geology, physics), and historically...really, what you have is nothing more than wishful thinking reflecting your own fear of death.
Most sane people do fear death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...

If humans do eventually succeed in transferring consciousness from organic matter to synthetic matter it will prove that "mind" can transcend the physical world. IOW, thoughts may not necessarily be limited to a particular space. Brain cells are not thoughts, they merely contain them.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#35321 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>

Now, I'm getting tired and I don't particularly like textually beating up on old men, so I may wander off soon.
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

-- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#35322 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we'd just have people telling us Nebraska man is real. You suck at logic. No offense, it goes hand-in-hand with those who fall for pseudo-science.
No, I'd prefer to avoid straw men, like this: "If that was the case you wouldn't know about the pig."
But Dude, baby! Did those esteemed men of science make those statements? ahahaha And, you did admit the sloppiness. You're well on the way to being tamed. Remember: You are the one looking like a fool, BECAUSE you refuse to address my points. Dude, I feel you're older than me, 18, but take some advice. Curb your tongue and cease your BS, because if you don't people like me just love to take you to task.:)
Now, I'd just like to point out to you that NONE of your tactics will ever work on me. I've responded to all of you, and I'm "on message." You shan't divert me. This is quite funny, because anyone looking at this sees that your lot are desperate to change the subject. Very telling, indeed.
It's ok, you don't need to officially admit defeat. It freakin' obvious!
Now, I'm getting tired and I don't particularly like textually beating up on old men, so I may wander off soon.
Wander off secure in the the knowledge you're dumb as a rock.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#35323 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
"You're just one more, ignorant, fundie fraud."
*Noted. The above is the usual method of the moronic holders of ToE, who make ASSUMPTIONS - FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. This is par for the course, and yet again proves my point about the curious "fuzzy logic" (read as illogical thought processes of those who take fragments of bones and proceed to manufacture entire "beings" of their own choosing out of them) that must necessarily accompany those among among the ranks of the deluded.
What pile of cráp do you put forward as a viable alternative to the modern theory of evolution? Talking snakes?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#35324 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Noted: FAILED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THOSE DISTINGUISHED experts from the time didn't make those statements. STILL FAILING to address my point. More DEFLECTION. TRYING TO WIDEN the debate because you cannot answer my point.:D
8-0
Narcissistic piece of bilge scum.
The Dude Destroyer

Australia

#35325 Jul 24, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
...and yet you fail to acknowledge that it WAS SCIENCE AS A WHOLE that discredited the incorrect assumptions made by a scant few in all of the cases that have been brought up.
You've won nothing.
And THAT is "freakin' obvious".
You are in dire need of a brain transplant, buddy. I'll be willing to do it with but the use of a spoon.:D

Yes, you've inadvertently gotten to the core of the problem, but I can't give you any credit because you're using the points to, incredibly, support the copious sewage that pours forth from your mind and, then, unfortunately is transferred into useless, embarrassing text.

The "scant few" are the problem. They foist their erroneous "discoveries" onto the masses. So, what's your point? And,let us not forget those esteemed, influential men of science who heartily embraced "Nebraska Man." :D

I got a good laugh of the other bit. haha

"Science", eh? Science saved us from the ERROR of Nebraska Man, which was thought to be genuine due to the sloppy methodology that is employed to this very day?

IT WAS DUMB LUCK that uncovered that error, you twit!

Can't you get it that super-thick skull of yours, that IF an event happened that destroyed the site BEFORE the rest of the PIG was discovered, it'd be your same "science" that would be perpetuating the error to THIS VERY DAY?

I "win" outright every time I decide to invest brain cells responding to your piles of junk that pose as something actually rational.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#35326 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Dude!:( You're too easy. NO. What I've demonstrated is: That if the rest of that PIG wasn't found, to this very day you'd believe in Nebraska Man. Why? Due to the sloppy, slipshod assumptive methods used to this very day by paleontologists to uphold ToE. Get it, moron?
And, this is true. We both know it, hehe.:D AND, it clearly demonstratea that some "heavyweigtys" of the time believed in Nebraska Man and it was only disregarded ONCE the rest of the PIG was found, you disingenuous fraud.:)
"In 1917, Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, unearthed one molar tooth in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. In 1922, he sent the tooth to Dr. Henry Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, who claimed that it belonged to an early hominid and determined that the tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. He wrote Cook saying: "I sat down with the tooth and I said to myself:'It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid'" (Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 1922, "Hesperopithecus, the first anthropoid primate found in America," American Museum Novitates, 37, p. 2 ). One month later, Osborn announced that Hesperopithecus haroldcookii was the first anthropoid ape from America; a missing link in human evolution.
Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy of Manchester, England, supported Osborn saying, "I think the balance of probability is in favour of the view that the tooth found in the Pliocene beds of Nebraska may possibly have belonged to a primitive member of the Human Family" (Smith, The Evolution of Man 1927)"
As for your continued attempts to try to widen this. Sorry.:) I'm here to show you CAN'T adequately answer me, pal. And, until the owners of this sire delete our lovely correspondences, due to it's embarrassing implications, it'll stand here for all to see. Quick! Get those Mods to delete it! Thant's the normal way it goes down on sites such as this.
Dude, your "cute" and "clever" use of "Goddit" is now demanding you pay the price. And that price is the embarrassment you're suffering here as I show how your ilk *magically* create beings out of mere fragments --- and GET IT WRONG.
Quyote-mining is such a simple and easily uncovered form of Creationist Lying.

Why didn't you also posts Smith's other comment: ""The suggestion that the Nebraska tooth (Hesperopithecus) may possibly indicate the existence of Mankind in Early Pliocene times is, as I have explained in the Foreword, still wholly tentative. The claim that real men were in existence in Pliocene and Miocene times must be regarded as a mere hypothesis unsupported as yet by any adequate evidence." (Smith, The Evolution of Man 1927)

See what happens when you try and make a quote support the unsupportable position. Nebraska Man wasn't a fraud, it was a mistake and one recogni9zed very early by ... other scientists. Funny how scientific mistakes and even the few cases of actual fraud are never discovered by armchair Creationists like yourself, but real scientists doing real science. Why is that?

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Answer a question with a question 7 min Hatti_Hollerand 187
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 7 min Hoosier Hillbilly 1,351
Poll Things that drive you crazy (Jan '10) 9 min Satan 4,743
News Ohio Man Caught Having Sex With Picnic Table (Mar '08) 24 min Kevin 154
Rest In Peace Beloved Lea 25 min Kevin 1
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 27 min TALLYHO 8541 41,289
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 27 min Hoosier Hillbilly 8,979
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 49 min Hatti_Hollerand 12,048
News Bob Costas Makes a Weird, Racist, Un-Funny Comm... 2 hr Go Blue Forever 4
More from around the web