Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201385 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.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#37395 Aug 11, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
Well....Aren't You The Intellectual ?
Is This How You Promote Your Faith ?
In Real Life...Id Bend You Like A Pretzel And Let You Drink A Straw Out Of Your Azz.
Other Then That....I Appreciate Your Juvenile Combativeness.
Sorry but everyone who thinks oil is not biotic and the government is keeping it a secret that there is plenty of it is a stupid idiot. This is not personal.

Oil is found where there were shallow seas , these shallow sea teem with life , and when they periodically dry up the life would die.
Layers of this would build up as it happened over thousands of years. This would get buried over time forming layers in the rock strata. Heat and pressure would leach the oil out of these layers and it then collects in porous rock , but most of it is to deep to retrieve , but when a fault fractures the rock that traps it it seeps upward from the pressure and that is where it is found.

The main reason this is known to be factual is that ever since
standard oil started pumping it geologist knew the thing to look
for when looking for oil was the salt left behind from the drying sea. I can prove this to you, because there is a special place in Iran where you can see exactly where it comes from.

Start watching this at 37.00 minutes , but I suggest you watch the whole thing it's really interesting. It explains the whole oil cycle . Then you will know the abiotic oil hypothesis is wrong.



But the main reason the abiotic oil myth has been brought back is that governments don't want you to know why we will soon be going to war . The oil supply will be exhausted in 40 years , but dwindling before then. When this happens and the machine run dry
what do you think will happen?

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#37396 Aug 11, 2012
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean, after they ate his body and drank his blood?
They just did what he told them to do.
Dr Rain

Stratford, Canada

#37398 Aug 11, 2012
Tom, you are a true credit to scientific facts!
Thomas Robertson wrote:
HTS, why this regard for Intelligent Design?
The panda has a hand which is very clumsy for eating bamboo shoots.
Doesn't God love pandas?
I feel sorry for Mommy Kiwi Bird.
It must be uncomfortable for such a small bird to lay such a large egg.
Scientists tell us that kiwis are descended from a larger species.
This seems to me to be a reasonable explanation for Mommy Kiwi's misfortune, and not that God wanted to punish female kiwi birds.
And what of vestigial organs?
We carry around an appendix which we don't need.
It was good for our ancestors, who had to digest tree bark.
But we have lost our taste for tree bark since then.
Is God telling us that he wants us to continue eating tree bark?
And what about claws on their wings, which ostriches don't need?
Could this be a vestige from their past as theropod dinosaurs, or does God just want them to carry those claws around for the exercise?
And why do embryos go through useless stages?
Why do elephant embryos grow an extra pair of tusks which they later resorb?
Why do whale embryos grow leg bones which they later resorb?
Could this be because ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, or because God enjoys the video display?
And what about junk DNA which nearly every species is carrying around?
Why do birds carry teeth DNA which they no longer need?
The squid has an eye which is more efficient than that of humans, and would work perfectly in a human body.
Does God love squids more than he loves humans?
The only reason our numerical system is based on 10 is because we have 10 fingers on both hands.
A duodecimal system, based on 12, would be more efficient.
I say that because 12 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and itself.
10, however, is divisible only by 1, 2, 5, and itself.
Doesn't this all-knowing God know his math?
Last but not least, why are the sexes so badly mismatched?
A man wants to hop in bed with every attractive woman he sees.
A woman, on the other hand, wants time for a relationship to warm up.
The logical explanation seems to me that it was once in the evolutionary interests for a men to leave as much seed as possible.
However, it was in the evolutionary interests for a woman to look before she leaps. Otherwise, she ends up with a cave full of young'uns with no mate to help care for them, and with little chance of survival.
Could this be the explanation, or is God merely testing us?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#37399 Aug 11, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Not only read the bible but undrstood it. Atheists have a far better understanding of religions than those that purport to be of that faith.(probably why they are atheists...understanding a religion is the first step to shunning it.)
"Religion allows you to understand everthing without knowing anything..." Can't remember who said that, maybe it was me...
Like the religion of atheistic evolution.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#37400 Aug 11, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but scientists are trying to find out.
Scientists are interested in learning.
It would be easy to say "God did it," but it wouldn't be very constructive.
Give me a logical reason why you assume "evolution did it".
HTS

Mandan, ND

#37401 Aug 11, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
HTS, why this regard for Intelligent Design?
The panda has a hand which is very clumsy for eating bamboo shoots.
Doesn't God love pandas?
I feel sorry for Mommy Kiwi Bird.
It must be uncomfortable for such a small bird to lay such a large egg.
Scientists tell us that kiwis are descended from a larger species.
This seems to me to be a reasonable explanation for Mommy Kiwi's misfortune, and not that God wanted to punish female kiwi birds.
And what of vestigial organs?
We carry around an appendix which we don't need.
It was good for our ancestors, who had to digest tree bark.
But we have lost our taste for tree bark since then.
Is God telling us that he wants us to continue eating tree bark?
And what about claws on their wings, which ostriches don't need?
Could this be a vestige from their past as theropod dinosaurs, or does God just want them to carry those claws around for the exercise?
And why do embryos go through useless stages?
Why do elephant embryos grow an extra pair of tusks which they later resorb?
Why do whale embryos grow leg bones which they later resorb?
Could this be because ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, or because God enjoys the video display?
And what about junk DNA which nearly every species is carrying around?
Why do birds carry teeth DNA which they no longer need?
The squid has an eye which is more efficient than that of humans, and would work perfectly in a human body.
Does God love squids more than he loves humans?
Your logic proves what I've been saying... Evolution is religion. All you can do is play God and imagine that if you designed a panda you'd give him an opposable thumb. You would give a human a better eye. You would create life so that embryos wouldn't produce redundant structures. You wouldn't make junk DNA. You expect people to accept evolution by default because you have philosophical problems with God. You're using the identical logic that Darwin used, and it's fundamentally flawed because it relies on philosophical assumptions.
If religion is stripped away from Darwinism, what is left is a naked theory that is entirely unsupported by any science.
Furthermore, you know nothing about creating life, writing a genetic code, how to design an embryo or what the purpose of "junk DNA" is. If you were up to date on your facts, you wouldn't bring up junk DNA, because major evolutionary zealots are eating crow because it's entire premise is collapsing.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#37402 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me a logical reason why you assume "evolution did it".
They remember it as a safe place to reproduce after all it is where they were born.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#37403 Aug 11, 2012
wolverine wrote:
Next, Discord...We Have Global Warming
You are a serious kitten hater, aren't you?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#37404 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It's obvious that you blindly accept what you want to believe, rather than actually examining the eivdence. You think that if a lot of people with credentials agree with you that you're safe.
DNA from cactus producing a human... So you think I need to show you a scientific impossibility for you to reject evolution?
Why would that be scientifically impossible? How do you know it is?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#37405 Aug 11, 2012
RU CRS wrote:
<quoted text>OK, I see you are tired of those charitable loving Christians and now you think the world should give those nice gay-homo communist God-hating satan-worshiping illuminati conspirators a chance at everybody. They all have nice intentions I guess????
Actually what you missed in my sarcasm was that not all Christians are charitable or loving, unless it happens to be towards other Christians (of the right type of course). However if you're worried about them gay-homo communist God-hating satan-worshiping illuminati conspirators remember that you are protected by the First Amendment.

Ain't religious freedom grand?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#37406 Aug 11, 2012
Dr Rain wrote:
<quoted text>
Wolverine you have a poor understanding of how oil prices are set. Speculators are who set prices. It is not based on limits but on greed. I'd be happy to provide you with many primers but my guess is you arent interested in the facts.
What is sad is that we have all the necessary tech to move away from oil (e.g. electric) but because there is more to bilk of the masses through ignorance and stupidity we are where we are today.
So please stop with your tin hat consipracies and read the facts.
Wolverine saw bigfoot and shot at it.

This should inform you of what you're dealing with.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#37407 Aug 11, 2012
PROFESSOR X wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because you serve "the phony god of self" and that false god allows you act any way you want. But no matter how much you desperately try to deceive yourself, the truth always resurfaces and you are accountable to it. There is freedom and deliverance from the spirit of Perversion. Furthermore, you prove my point that most Atheists are homosexuals. Romans 1:16-32
The Psychology of Atheism
Ah, the fake Prof liar finally gives up any pretense that he's on anything but a religious propaganda mission. By the way, you know God is sending you to hell for breaking the 9th Commandment, right?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#37408 Aug 11, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
There we have it again, your concrete unalterable faith that life sprang into existence. What did you say,...life could quite easily have started? As I said you have absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE yet you causally say it was quite easily done. I see the brainwashing of the puddle goo congregation has rendered you incapable of rational independant thought . Just stick to your parroted lines of , fundie, liar and uneducated responses. The more you divert from the script the more galactically stupid you are.
Of course, that's why you're the one who relies on parroting caricatures and ignoring the really inconvenient posts.

Fine, fine, keep on misrepresenting me and science in general. It's not like no-one around here doesn't notice.
bohart wrote:
P.S. You need to get into MIT or Harvard and tell them how simple life creation is, they've been at a roadblock for over a hundred years.
And they've learned more about the early Earth in that time than you ever will. After all, the Earth wasn't even here back then!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#37409 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me a logical reason why you assume "evolution did it".
Because that is all there is positive evidence for. There is no evidence for ID. Usually IDiots are so far behind the time research wise that when they come up with one of their foolish "irreducible complexity" claims the problem has already been solved. We can observe evolution several different ways. We can observe it in the fossil record. Darwin observed it in the life of the Galapagos islands, most notably through finches. We can observe it through ring species. DNA itself massively supports evolution.

What kind of creationist are you? Do you believe that the Earth is only 6,000 or so years old or do you believe it is 4.55 billion years old? Why do you believe in creationism?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#37410 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Like the religion of atheistic evolution.
Sorry, but that religion exists only for hard-line atheists. It's got zip to do with the actual scientific theory of biological evolution. But hey, don't let anything like facts get in the way, huh?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#37411 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me a logical reason why you assume "evolution did it".
Here ya go:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#37412 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your logic proves what I've been saying... Evolution is religion. All you can do is play God and imagine that if you designed a panda you'd give him an opposable thumb. You would give a human a better eye. You would create life so that embryos wouldn't produce redundant structures. You wouldn't make junk DNA. You expect people to accept evolution by default because you have philosophical problems with God. You're using the identical logic that Darwin used, and it's fundamentally flawed because it relies on philosophical assumptions.
If religion is stripped away from Darwinism, what is left is a naked theory that is entirely unsupported by any science.
Furthermore, you know nothing about creating life, writing a genetic code, how to design an embryo or what the purpose of "junk DNA" is. If you were up to date on your facts, you wouldn't bring up junk DNA, because major evolutionary zealots are eating crow because it's entire premise is collapsing.
If stupid were a crime , you would get at least 3 consecutive life sentences.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#37413 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your logic proves what I've been saying... Evolution is religion. All you can do is play God and imagine that if you designed a panda you'd give him an opposable thumb. You would give a human a better eye. You would create life so that embryos wouldn't produce redundant structures. You wouldn't make junk DNA.
And the problem with pointing out the problems of your position is...?

(shrug)
HTS wrote:
You expect people to accept evolution by default because you have philosophical problems with God. You're using the identical logic that Darwin used, and it's fundamentally flawed because it relies on philosophical assumptions.
Actually that's incorrect. We expect people to accept evolution because of the evidence. Well, we don't expect fundies to accept science based on evidence because evidence doesn't matter to them. But then that's their problem.

Also those philosophical problems with God are not our problems either. They're yours. It's not our fault if you believe in a god which is an absurdly limited big jessie-wuss wuss.
HTS wrote:
If religion is stripped away from Darwinism, what is left is a naked theory that is entirely unsupported by any science.
Since I've presented the evidence to you over and over, the only rational conclusion can be is that you're simply just another dishonest fundie liar for Jesus.
HTS wrote:
Furthermore, you know nothing about creating life, writing a genetic code, how to design an embryo or what the purpose of "junk DNA" is.
You're quite right - we don't know anything about any of that at all in an ID/Creation context.

Because we keep asking you for the "science" of your position and you keep on avoiding it and ranting on about them mean old atheists. Which is effectively an admission that you reject science cuz you think Goddidit with magic.
HTS wrote:
If you were up to date on your facts, you wouldn't bring up junk DNA, because major evolutionary zealots are eating crow because it's entire premise is collapsing.
Really? Because we've been through all this before. You were wrong back then and you're wrong now.

And as usual you don't address the content of our posts nor the flaws in your own.

Why is that?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#37414 Aug 11, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Because that is all there is positive evidence for. There is no evidence for ID. Usually IDiots are so far behind the time research wise that when they come up with one of their foolish "irreducible complexity" claims the problem has already been solved. We can observe evolution several different ways. We can observe it in the fossil record. Darwin observed it in the life of the Galapagos islands, most notably through finches. We can observe it through ring species. DNA itself massively supports evolution.
What kind of creationist are you? Do you believe that the Earth is only 6,000 or so years old or do you believe it is 4.55 billion years old? Why do you believe in creationism?
Whether he realizes it or not, much of his apologetics is of the Young Earth variety.

Of course he could still accept an old Earth and simply be too dumb to notice that he's using Young Earth arguments, or too dishonest to care.

Or even worse, he could be one of those fundies who is "open-minded" as to the age of the Earth and the universe.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#37416 Aug 11, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Sir....I Tend To Think Mankind Is Lost....Other Then The Hard Working Middle Class...
Greed, Coruption, Agendas, Political Hacks, Entitlements....
This Is Not America Anymore.
None of which has anything to do with Evolution. There is no agenda that benefits from it. No matter how corrupt the scientific community might be, no one gains by supporting Evolution if it wasn't backed by evidence. It doesn't strengthen Atheism, even if that was the goal. It's not job security, because even if Evolution was replaced by something else, it would still be science, and would still require Biologists. And it's not for the chicks.

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
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 2 min SweLL GirL 3,355
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 3 min SweLL GirL 13,477
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 6 min avon5735 18,437
2words into 2new words (May '12) 7 min Poppyann 2,883
One Word (Jan '09) 10 min Poppyann 16,612
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 10 min dem 8,542
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 17 min Sharlene45 194,346
TRUMP, Donald (Jun '15) 46 min President Trump 181
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 5 hr Jose 32,682
More from around the web