Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221446 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 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59524 Nov 17, 2012
Again, if old English is similar or closely related to German and Icelandic, that means, the Germans and the people of Iceland will definitely understand old English unlike modern English.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#59525 Nov 17, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
What refutes it?
<quoted text>
Sure about that? Let's look:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-...
<quoted text>
Who says that the first living thing was a "cell"?
Ok, so you have no idea about the problems with big bang theory, which in themselves can be seen to refute rather than support the status quo.

Here is 10 of them.

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBprob...

If you're not happy with that and wish to speak to any of a plethora of theories that basically support anything you want supported, here is something else...

Big Bang Afterglow fails intergalactic shadow test.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/...

Here is a simpler geocentric model that does not need to evoke mysteries like dark energy and matter that are meant to comprise 96% of the matter in the universe that researchers know nothing about.

http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...

As for your last question "who says the first living thing was a cell?" all I have to say to you is asking a question to mask the fact that evolutionists really have no idea how to answer their questions they themselves pose is soooo typical!

Also don't forget the famous single celled LUCA, the prize evidence that evos carried on about for over a decade now resides in the trash can of evolutionary delusions past. The death knell sounded by the discovery of HGT. This is yet another example of a single find overtuning what many naturalists suggest is convincing evidence that only a fool would contest. It is obvious that much of what is currently accepted as empirical evidence is no more than flavour of the month.

What ever convolution you care to carry on about, reproduction I'd say, is a priori for anything to be classed as 'living' in an organic and biological sense, regardless of what ever woffly descriptor or name you wish to call the first living organism.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#59526 Nov 17, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
Again, if old English is similar or closely related to German and Icelandic, that means, the Germans and the people of Iceland will definitely understand old English unlike modern English.
What? We are pretty sure you will never understand anything....

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59527 Nov 17, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> What? We are pretty sure you will never understand anything....
Boom-booz!!!
Tell me what you know?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#59528 Nov 17, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Boom-booz!!!
Tell me what you know?
OK never say you didn't you ask for it...

Charles is a nut!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#59529 Nov 17, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know what you are talking about. I tell it as I see it and you are the one twisting the truth around here as far as I can see, but I am supposed to pray for you and as hard as it is for me to obey that part of the lord's commands I will.

I realize that you do not know that you are under the influence of Satan.

Such is Satan's power of deception.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59530 Nov 17, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> OK never say you didn't you ask for it...
Charles is a nut!
Ok never say you didn't you ask for it...
Aura is a nut!

Level 2

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#59531 Nov 17, 2012
Satan rules the earth....Rev. 12:9.....2 Corinthians 4:4.......1 John 5:19......easy to understand and most believable.
FREE SERVANT
#59532 Nov 17, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize that you do not know that you are under the influence of Satan.
Such is Satan's power of deception.
I know you are trying to be funny, lets quit for now. I did say a prayer for you though.

“Eleanor, Where is your heart?!”

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#59533 Nov 17, 2012
heh wrote:
<quoted text>
Well get ready for December 21st, 2012. According to Jack Van Impe, that is the day all the believers will float into the sky to receive their reward. I'll be very disappointed if they don't.
That'd make more sense if you didn't say 'they'. I think you want to say 'we'.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#59534 Nov 17, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I know you are trying to be funny, lets quit for now. I did say a prayer for you though.

Joking, eh?

Lets examine the facts:

1. You claim to be on the side of God and trying to witness for him.
2. However....
3. You are obnoxious and ACTUALLY drive people further from God.
4. Driving people from God is the job of Satan and him minions.
5. Ergo,.....

Just connect the dots an you will see who your real master is.

ANYONE can claim to be on Gods side, but by their fruits ye shall know them.

Your fruits are thorns.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59535 Nov 17, 2012
That site doesn't say that Germans can understand Old English.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Then, you did not go down through the given information.
I read the site. Nothing in that site says that Germans can understand Old English.

If you believe otherwise, provide a quote from the site.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59536 Nov 17, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
Again, if old English is similar or closely related to German and Icelandic, that means, the Germans and the people of Iceland will definitely understand old English
That two languages are "similar" does not mean that speakers of one will understand the other language.

Nothing in the site you provided says that Old English is "closely" related either to German or to Icelandic.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59537 Nov 17, 2012
MazHere wrote:
so you have no idea about the problems with big bang theory
You certainly didn't identify any in your previous posting. You simply claimed that they existed.
MazHere wrote:
http://metaresearch.org/cosmol ogy/top10BBproblems.asp
I didn't see any peer-reviewed scientific research papers listed on that page. All I say were claims made by a "Meta Research" publication. And that website and the publication itself appear to be the production of this individual:

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

The same guy who claimed that the Martian "face" was unnatural (later shown to be an artifact of angle and shadow).

You really need to produce some actual peer-reviewed research to identify problems with the Big Bang theory. Not just some particular crackpot's position on it.
MazHere wrote:
As for your last question "who says the first living thing was a cell?" all I have to say to you is asking a question to mask the fact that evolutionists really have no idea how to answer their questions they themselves pose is soooo typical!
I'll take your answer to mean "nobody", and you were merely engaged in a straw man argument.

Let us know when you have actual argument and not merely childish insults.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59539 Nov 17, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
That site doesn't say that Germans can understand Old English.
<quoted text>
I read the site. Nothing in that site says that Germans can understand Old English.
If you believe otherwise, provide a quote from the site.
Then you are wrong. What do we mean by closely related?
It means that the languages are similar to one another. Old English is closely related to German and Icelandic, that means the people of Germany and Iceland can understand old English more than the modern English.
My stand is that, English(modern), though having roots in other European languages, started as a single independent language in England. That independent language called English or modern English, was first spoken in England.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59540 Nov 17, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
That two languages are "similar" does not mean that speakers of one will understand the other language.
Nothing in the site you provided says that Old English is "closely" related either to German or to Icelandic.
Similar?
The word, " similar", stands for the same.
So, if Old English is similar to German, etc, than modern English, it means that the Germans can understand more of old English than modern English.
Try to be honest with your answers and responses.
Old English from research, is closer to German and Icelandic, than modern English, all these are clearly stated on the website presented.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59541 Nov 17, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
That two languages are "similar" does not mean that speakers of one will understand the other language.
Nothing in the site you provided says that Old English is "closely" related either to German or to Icelandic.
Again, this is a dishonest answer from you.
Old English is closely related to German and Icelandic, more than the modern English. This was clearly stated on the presented site, that you are disregarding.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#59542 Nov 17, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You certainly didn't identify any in your previous posting. You simply claimed that they existed.
<quoted text>
I didn't see any peer-reviewed scientific research papers listed on that page. All I say were claims made by a "Meta Research" publication. And that website and the publication itself appear to be the production of this individual:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern
The same guy who claimed that the Martian "face" was unnatural (later shown to be an artifact of angle and shadow).
You really need to produce some actual peer-reviewed research to identify problems with the Big Bang theory. Not just some particular crackpot's position on it.
<quoted text>
I'll take your answer to mean "nobody", and you were merely engaged in a straw man argument.
Let us know when you have actual argument and not merely childish insults.
Denial is not a good look. Anyone that suggests that big bang theory has no concerns has already demonstrated the level of their true scientific base.

Look at you quacking about my straw men. Either these idiots know what they are saying or they do not.

This is what you are hiding your head i the sand over.

University Of Alabama In Huntsville (2006, September 5). Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test. ScienceDaily.

No shadows, no big bang. Is that too scientific for you? Perhaps you can quote Womans Day.

"The various theories that exist on the early universe are, therefore, experimental and have not been empirically verified. The direct measurement of gravitational waves would enable us to look back to the first billionth of the first second after the Big Bang and thereby obtain completely new insights into the universe."

http://www.mpg.de/4333311/background

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-ti...

Words from man himself....... If you disagree you should go give Hawkins a mouth full.

And the big one that everyone should know is this, Hawkins knows his physics break down at the singularity. Of course that is not a problem for these scientific types with an assumption to sell off as science. A stuff up at the base is easily hand waved away, just as long as all the research chooks in the chook pen are happy.

Level 2

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#59543 Nov 17, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Then you are wrong. What do we mean by closely related?
It means that the languages are similar to one another. Old English is closely related to German and Icelandic, that means the people of Germany and Iceland can understand old English more than the modern English.
My stand is that, English(modern), though having roots in other European languages, started as a single independent language in England. That independent language called English or modern English, was first spoken in England.
You are a senseless FREAKSHOW....wanting to be heard.........your views are decisive and corrupt. You are a scummy person trying to be like all of us....you never will be, as you spew garbage...sadly...daily.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59544 Nov 17, 2012
I read the site. Nothing in that site says that Germans can understand Old English.
If you believe otherwise, provide a quote from the site.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Then you are wrong.
Until you provide an actual quote from the site that says that Germans can understand Old English, then I am correct, and you are still wrong.
Charles Idemi wrote:
What do we mean by closely related?
The article doesn't say that Old English is closely related to "German". It says that it is closely related to "Old Frisian and Low German". Low German is not what we mean when we say "German". Low German is an Ingvaeonic language. What we call "German" is actually *High* German, which is not an Ingvaeonic language. High German is a Erminonic language.
In any event, Old English, Old Frisian, and Low German (actually, its ancestor, which was Old Saxon) were closely related because they are all Ingvaeonic. But that doesn't tell us that modern speakers of Low German can *understand* Old English. Speakers of Old Saxon might have been able to understand Old English, but just as speakers of Modern English cannot understand Old English, there is no reason to believe that speakers of Low German can understand Old English.
Now, unless you can provide an actual source that tells us that speakers of Low German can *understand* Old English, you still have nothing.
It means that the languages are similar to one another. Old English is closely related to German and Icelandic, that means the people of Germany and Iceland can understand old English more than the modern English.
My stand is that, English(modern), though having roots in other European languages, started as a single independent language in England. That independent language called English or modern English, was first spoken in England.

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
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 8 min xxxooxxx 17,212
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 14 min Fish_sticks 21,941
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 22 min KellyP in Jersey 46,730
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 25 min Rose_NoHo 37,864
"Any 3 word combination" (Dec '12) 29 min -TheExam- 3,748
Sexual Word Association Game...! (Nov '12) 30 min KellyP in Jersey 289
if there were no consequences ? 33 min Queen Doggy Sam 11
A to Z songs by title or group! 36 min xxxooxxx 1,831
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 50 min Sharlene45 217,268
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr contemplater 4,098
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 4 hr Fish_sticks 75,317
More from around the web