Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 comments on the Jan 6, 2011, Best of New Orleans story 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

#59695 Nov 19, 2012
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if you take the Garden of Eden story literally. And now you have to come up with fanciful apologetics to try to explain inconsistencies with the Adam and Eve story.
Now if you think of the Garden of Eden story as a child to adult "coming of age" allegory, it's easier to understand.
This generation can really not tell the past, more than the people that lived in that era.
Science is man made, just like computer. Seen is believing, though people do exaggerate, but we are not there unlike them.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59696 Nov 19, 2012
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Like Jesus?
Did Jesus rebel?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59697 Nov 19, 2012
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
"Much importance should not be attached to a single person."
How about Jesus?
No one who had lived or still living, can be like Jesus.
He is meek, humble and gentle.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#59698 Nov 19, 2012
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Evaluating your linked references:
1)metasearch and thomas van flandern is a bit iffy even with a google search.
2) You use a journal citing one report as evidence. Not really going to take the time to search to see if a subsequent finding showed a flaw in the findings of that report. If Cold Fusion has taught us anything, it's to view reports like these skeptically.
3) a blog trying to reconcile science with the bible? really?
Here is another example of a great woffler with a hide as thick as a cow.

This creature above appears to think that many words are better that providing support for ones opinion and not a sniff of current research in refute behind it.

Evos are great at calling for peer reviewed and published research. Too bad they can't find any of it too support their big words.

Then of course we get the fruit loops here with dinosaur quals that have no clue about recent research and then ask me to prove every word I say, like as if they were morons hiding in some cave the past 10 years and remain clueless to the theory they hope to support.

Would you like me to 'prove' again that your famous single celled LUCA is dead and a failed prediction swept under the carpet with many others.

Would you like me to demonstrate again how evos shoved junk DNA down creos throats ad nauseum only to now find out that at least 80% of the genome is now known to be functional.

http://www.biotechniques.com/news/biotechniqu...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

I as a creationist I do not change my predictions in knee jerk fashion as evos do.

Would you evos like to make another prediction around non coding dna? Let's see what predictive ability TOE actually has. Do you lot of evos predict some junk or no junk in the genome, or are you unable to make a prediction unless it is in hindsight.

I'll make a creo prediction: Over time and with credible long term research all dna will be found to have some function. This is because if we were created there would be no need for junk.

Come on...!! You lot bombed out on vestigial organs, having to change the definition of vestigial from "no" function at all to "different" function because that prediction also failed and these bright sparks did not want to loose face.

Now let's see if I get more than a humble opinion back in response. Let's hope it is not from last century.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59700 Nov 19, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
You refused to see the evidence.
You didn't provide any evidence. The fact that Old English was closer grammatically to German and Icelandic than to Modern English is not evidence that modern Germans can understand Old English.

Where is your evidence that modern Germans can understand Old English? We're still waiting.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59701 Nov 19, 2012
You're engaged in a red herring. The issue wasn't whether Old English was Germanic (or even whether it was "more Germanic" than any other particular language), but whether or not modern Germans could understand Old English.
Provide the evidence to support your claim that modern Germans can understand Old English.
We're *still* waiting.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Whether you like it or not. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes, finally pitched their tents in England
Whether you like it or not, the Angles and Saxons spoke the same language on their boats that they spoke right after they got off their boats.

Now, provide the evidence to support your claim that modern Germans can understand Old English.

We're *still* waiting.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59702 Nov 19, 2012
Charles seems to think that speakers of *modern* German can understand Old English.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Ofcourse, i said that. That ofcourse, is true.
No, it's false. You've provided no evidence to support its being true.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59703 Nov 19, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You qualities vividly outlined. That is generous of you.
Typographical error:
From the first word, it is, " YOUR " and not, " YOU " .

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#59704 Nov 19, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is another example of a great woffler with a hide as thick as a cow.
This creature above appears to think that many words are better that providing support for ones opinion and not a sniff of current research in refute behind it.
Evos are great at calling for peer reviewed and published research. Too bad they can't find any of it too support their big words.
Then of course we get the fruit loops here with dinosaur quals that have no clue about recent research and then ask me to prove every word I say, like as if they were morons hiding in some cave the past 10 years and remain clueless to the theory they hope to support.
Would you like me to 'prove' again that your famous single celled LUCA is dead and a failed prediction swept under the carpet with many others.
Would you like me to demonstrate again how evos shoved junk DNA down creos throats ad nauseum only to now find out that at least 80% of the genome is now known to be functional.
http://www.biotechniques.com/news/biotechniqu...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
I as a creationist I do not change my predictions in knee jerk fashion as evos do.
Would you evos like to make another prediction around non coding dna? Let's see what predictive ability TOE actually has. Do you lot of evos predict some junk or no junk in the genome, or are you unable to make a prediction unless it is in hindsight.
I'll make a creo prediction: Over time and with credible long term research all dna will be found to have some function. This is because if we were created there would be no need for junk.
Come on...!! You lot bombed out on vestigial organs, having to change the definition of vestigial from "no" function at all to "different" function because that prediction also failed and these bright sparks did not want to loose face.
Now let's see if I get more than a humble opinion back in response. Let's hope it is not from last century.
What I like best is listening to posters that think language is at the heart of the evolution/creation debate.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59705 Nov 19, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh are you? You never come across as though you are aware of anything except your god book and accusing christians of child murder.
You can generalise that, and see how foolish you may sound and look.
Christians are well educated in all disciplines.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59706 Nov 19, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't provide any evidence. The fact that Old English was closer grammatically to German and Icelandic than to Modern English is not evidence that modern Germans can understand Old English.
Where is your evidence that modern Germans can understand Old English? We're still waiting.
This is what we call, " hasty conclusion or generalisation ", or simply, " fallacy".
You are wrong, modern German speakers, do have an idea on old English than modern English. Many people do know this.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59707 Nov 19, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
You're engaged in a red herring. The issue wasn't whether Old English was Germanic (or even whether it was "more Germanic" than any other particular language), but whether or not modern Germans could understand Old English.
Provide the evidence to support your claim that modern Germans can understand Old English.
We're *still* waiting.
<quoted text>
Whether you like it or not, the Angles and Saxons spoke the same language on their boats that they spoke right after they got off their boats.
Now, provide the evidence to support your claim that modern Germans can understand Old English.
We're *still* waiting.
From your premise, you are saying that, old English is similar to modern English. Try that fallacy elsewhere. You are wrong.
Germans can understand old English earsier than Modern English.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59708 Nov 19, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
You're engaged in a red herring. The issue wasn't whether Old English was Germanic (or even whether it was "more Germanic" than any other particular language), but whether or not modern Germans could understand Old English.
Provide the evidence to support your claim that modern Germans can understand Old English.
We're *still* waiting.
<quoted text>
Whether you like it or not, the Angles and Saxons spoke the same language on their boats that they spoke right after they got off their boats.
Now, provide the evidence to support your claim that modern Germans can understand Old English.
We're *still* waiting.
The Saxons, Jutes and Angles, are all English people. When they were in Germany and Frisian, Denmark, etc. They were not regarded as the English, until they finally get to England.
This is also true of the US. The whites historically, are purely of English, Spanish, German, other European and Asian extraction.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59709 Nov 19, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Charles seems to think that speakers of *modern* German can understand Old English.
<quoted text>
No, it's false. You've provided no evidence to support its being true.
Are you refuting what wikipaedia said?
Or, are you trying to change their statement to suit your aim?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#59712 Nov 19, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What MazHere is using is called supporting ones opinion with twoddle from your own evolutionary researchers.
Does everyone notice that this evoretard appears to think his opinion outweighs my ability to support my castration of TOE and highlight its many warts.
Sorry champ. You need to mature to the point where you understand what supporting ones opinion actually looks like.
So MazHere, tell me where you got your degree in genomic sciences, biology, or related subjects.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#59713 Nov 19, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What I like best is listening to posters that think language is at the heart of the evolution/creation debate.

The weird chick who don't know no science be here talking to herself, yea.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#59714 Nov 19, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is another example of a great woffler with a hide as thick as a cow.
This creature above appears to think that many words are better that providing support for ones opinion and not a sniff of current research in refute behind it.
Evos are great at calling for peer reviewed and published research. Too bad they can't find any of it too support their big words.
Then of course we get the fruit loops here with dinosaur quals that have no clue about recent research and then ask me to prove every word I say, like as if they were morons hiding in some cave the past 10 years and remain clueless to the theory they hope to support.
Would you like me to 'prove' again that your famous single celled LUCA is dead and a failed prediction swept under the carpet with many others.
Would you like me to demonstrate again how evos shoved junk DNA down creos throats ad nauseum only to now find out that at least 80% of the genome is now known to be functional.
http://www.biotechniques.com/news/biotechniqu...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
I as a creationist I do not change my predictions in knee jerk fashion as evos do.
Would you evos like to make another prediction around non coding dna? Let's see what predictive ability TOE actually has. Do you lot of evos predict some junk or no junk in the genome, or are you unable to make a prediction unless it is in hindsight.
I'll make a creo prediction: Over time and with credible long term research all dna will be found to have some function. This is because if we were created there would be no need for junk.
Come on...!! You lot bombed out on vestigial organs, having to change the definition of vestigial from "no" function at all to "different" function because that prediction also failed and these bright sparks did not want to loose face.
Now let's see if I get more than a humble opinion back in response. Let's hope it is not from last century.

I refuted this junk yesterday.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#59715 Nov 19, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What MazHere is using is called supporting ones opinion with twoddle from your own evolutionary researchers.
Does everyone notice that this evoretard appears to think his opinion outweighs my ability to support my castration of TOE and highlight its many warts.
Sorry champ. You need to mature to the point where you understand what supporting ones opinion actually looks like.
No, but his understand, education, and comprehension are vastly superior to yours.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#59716 Nov 19, 2012
I fish wrote:
<quoted text>
How was that 'Generation' described??? It was a rebellious one... what else???

It was described as THIS generation.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#59717 Nov 19, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What MazHere is using is called supporting ones opinion with twoddle from your own evolutionary researchers.
Does everyone notice that this evoretard appears to think his opinion outweighs my ability to support my castration of TOE and highlight its many warts.
Sorry champ. You need to mature to the point where you understand what supporting ones opinion actually looks like.

Yea, MazHere is just another creotard posting crap from creationist web sites. It is clear she does not understand a thing she is talking about. Might as well just ignore her.

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
Word Association (Jun '10) 5 min beatlesinafog 27,313
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) 9 min wichita-rick 1,482
Word Association (Mar '10) 11 min beatlesinafog 17,031
News Freak lawnmower accident shoots wire through ma... 14 min wichita-rick 11
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 25 min wichita-rick 161,486
What's for dinner? (Feb '12) 30 min wichita-rick 7,286
Dave's bar and grill,is now open. (May '13) 50 min NinaRocks 6,008
Things that make life eaiser... 1 hr wichita-rick 123
News Burger King Customer Arrested After Citing Movie 3 hr Barry 6
motorcycle traveling stories 3 hr Mega Monster 567
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 4 hr Crazy Jae 28,868
More from around the web