Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 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 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60550 Nov 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I can explain it. But not this late at night. How do you explain that one plus one equals two? I can't, not rigorously. You should see the mathematical proof for that, it is a very long one.
Sometimes the simplest of ideas are the hardest to explain. To me what I described was self evident given the definition of scientific evidence. I think I will take that route tomorrow.
IDIOT, your name is very descriptive of you.
You can't explain anything.

You boofed out on junk dna, vestigial organs, human ch2, ervs, whale and bird fossil evidence. Now you are going to boof out on the fossils in support of human evolution with one entore half of the story missing entirely from the fossil evidence. Well done you evos!
ARGUING with IDIOTS

Chico, CA

#60551 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>Well done!!!!

Subductionzone gets his points from posting baseless blather.

He asserts some vague view here on human fossil evidence, then can't name any and just relies on 'oh you know'..deh!

In fact one entire half of the human/chimp split is missing. That is the true state of the fossil evidence.
They are only interested in mockery and ridicule, not in the honest exchange of ideas.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60552 Nov 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>It is getting very late for me, almost 1:00 AM so I will probably continue this in the morning, but how about the two I mentioned. Or maybe you would like to discuss others.
And so what if H. eretus shrank a bit. It does not seem to concern your writer. Part of the reason that science has peer review is so that mistakes are corrected. Not like your silly book that is supposedly right all of the time and yet can be shown to be wrong hundreds of times.
Take A. afarensis. The famous find Lucy, was over 40% of a skeleton. Other A. a.'s have added even more to the skeleton. Do you think that experts cannot identify a fossil from a single bone? I don't know. That was not my field and I know that I could not do it. But I would not say that it is impossible. Given time and practice is seems possible to me. I remember reading a book on a persons quest to become a surgeon. To help familiarize himself with anatomy he and friends would take a bone from a bag throw it through the air to a colleague who would catch it and put it in another bag. From the short spinning moving glimpse of the bone the doctoral candidate had to identify it. And we are not talking just easy bones like the femur. Specific metatarsels and metacarpels had to be identified in flight.
So are you claiming that an expert could not identify a species from one bone given enough time to thoroughly analyze it?
Listen, there is no use wasting space woffling on.

Are you suggesting afarensis is a good example of a fossil that supports human evolution or are you just ranting?

This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6568.abstr...

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewt...

What leads you to still suggest that Lucy is a human ancestor as opposed to a chimp ancestor in light of the above recent research from 2006?

I can quote other reseaerchers that doubt the validity of afarensis being in the human line eg Dawkins in An Ancestors Tale, but what makes you think she should stay there other than some evos say she should?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60553 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen, there is no use wasting space woffling on.
Are you suggesting afarensis is a good example of a fossil that supports human evolution or are you just ranting?
This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6568.abstr...
http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewt...
What leads you to still suggest that Lucy is a human ancestor as opposed to a chimp ancestor in light of the above recent research from 2006?
I can quote other reseaerchers that doubt the validity of afarensis being in the human line eg Dawkins in An Ancestors Tale, but what makes you think she should stay there other than some evos say she should?
Yes, Lucy is still our ancestor. Both of your articles support that. The jaw that is somewhat gorilla-like is a minor part of its body. The fact that Lucy and others walked upright is still much more significant than that observation.

Once again Mav, don't you even read the articles that you link? The second one explains why Lucy is still considered to be our ancestor. Do you need me to do a copy and paste of your own link? How embarrassing.
ARGUING with IDIOTS

Chico, CA

#60554 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>Listen, there is no use wasting space woffling on.

Are you suggesting afarensis is a good example of a fossil that supports human evolution or are you just ranting?

This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6568.abstr...

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewt...

What leads you to still suggest that Lucy is a human ancestor as opposed to a chimp ancestor in light of the above recent research from 2006?

I can quote other reseaerchers that doubt the validity of afarensis being in the human line eg Dawkins in An Ancestors Tale, but what makes you think she should stay there other than some evos say she should?
Just an FYI, they hate an informed opponent.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60555 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't explain anything.
You boofed out on junk dna, vestigial organs, human ch2, ervs, whale and bird fossil evidence. Now you are going to boof out on the fossils in support of human evolution with one entore half of the story missing entirely from the fossil evidence. Well done you evos!
I can explain things. Some people refuse to learn. That is a form of dishonesty. Of course after a while we know that all creationists on forums tend to be extremely dishonest. They seem to believe it is okay to lie for Jesus.

I did not "boof" out on any of the topics you listed. I explained why you were wrong well enough that any high school graduate here could understand. I might have to lower my standards considering that you are Australian.

We do not need any human fossils to show that man evolved. We have more than enough to do the task, but since we are curious the work goes on. There are many species we do not have complete lines for nor do we expect to find them. The fossil record by its nature is incomplete. So not finding some fossils is not evidence against the theory. Once again, your side is sorely lacking in logical abilities. The number of logical errors that you make is breathtaking.

I said I would try to explain it in the morning, I do not lie like creationists do. Patience is a virtue. Dealing with idiots sometimes tries that virtue to the breaking point. So wait. Think. Maybe you will understand why in the morning.

Review the linked definition of scientific evidence.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60556 Nov 24, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Just an FYI, they hate an informed opponent.
So you are saying that we love you and Maz.

There is no such thing as an honest informed creationist, so yes, I do hate liars.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60557 Nov 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not evidence, or at best it is very weak evidence that does not have much credibility. Though it is impossible to debunk the entire Bible there are many flaws in it. Though creationists go into deep denial whenever it is pointed out it is true that all of Genesis has been debunked by science and Exodus has been debunked by archaeologists, which I guess would be under science too. Much of the Bible is historically wrong or self contradictory. The morals that it practices are horrible. As are its morals.
Your opinion...

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60558 Nov 24, 2012
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that's very nice that you bestow such a status on him. Tell me, do you do the same for all heretics?
Heretics?
You are not God to judge.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#60559 Nov 24, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> That gaps can never be filled by language, grammar or words. God created the universe. God bless...
Thank you, yes he did and I know you are standing for his word the Bible. As always may God bless you my brother in Christ.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60560 Nov 24, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Heretics?
You are not God to judge.
You're a liar.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60561 Nov 24, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Your opinion...
Your lie.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60562 Nov 24, 2012
....To date.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60563 Nov 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
They found pieces of Mark? Really? And how do they know that this is the Mark who wrote the gospel with his name. And even if this was true how do we know that anything he wrote was true?
So why did you bring this Mark nonsense up at all?
Moses probably did not write the penteteuch, and even if he did there are even older writings by other cultures.
Genesis got all sorts of facts wrong, and even got how the Moon was made wrong. So what if it got that the Moon was made after the Earth, the much huger mistake it makes is to claim that the Sun was made after the Earth. You cannot claim the Bible's victories if you are not willing to claim its mistakes.
It seems that Maz is quickly descending to the level of pure creatard.
Isn't the current preferred theory the one where a planetoid collided with the Earth and the debris that was scattered coalesced to form the Moon? It's kind of hard to decide which was made first based on that. The primordial Earth and Moon were blended together.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60564 Nov 24, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you, yes he did and I know you are standing for his word the Bible. As always may God bless you my brother in Christ.
Amen, and also with you.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60565 Nov 24, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Poor thinking and thoughts.
Judgmental liar.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60566 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a liar.
Liar!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60567 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Your lie.
That is your attributes.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60568 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Judgmental liar.
Likewise.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60569 Nov 24, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Amen, and also with you.
Xenophobic liar and bigot.

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
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 1 min Hoosier Hillbilly 2,221
A-Z of people's names.. 3 min Mr_FX 12
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 4 min Mr_FX 8,405
last word - first (Jun '12) 5 min Hoosier Hillbilly 7,717
Poll 3 "NEW" words from last 3 letters without using... (Sep '12) 7 min Hoosier Hillbilly 1,733
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 9 min Hoosier Hillbilly 4,330
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 9 min Hoosier Hillbilly 5,590
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 37 min Hoosier Hillbilly 204
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr eleanorigby 40,292
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr hazeldeluna 161,852
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 3 hr Princess Hey 8,270
Things that make life eaiser... 4 hr wichita-rick 283
More from around the web