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.

Orangelion

Rhyl, UK

#60634 Nov 24, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
More of your "interpretation?" Where did I ever say otherwise? I'll be nice, find anywhere on Topix I said otherwise, you are not limited by just that one single post. But remember to keep it in context.
LOL, and this coming from a transgender wannabe.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60635 Nov 24, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Go to the east or where ever you are to preach your fallacy.
I am a Christian. Any information about the truth, philosophy and wise sayings, etc, are found in the bible.
I don't preach. I made a comment that wasn't about the bible, you narrow-minded and intolerant liar!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#60636 Nov 24, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, and this coming from a transgender wannabe.
Interesting choice of words, considering that I cannot argue with them. The transgendered people can rightfully claim to be the most courageous and bravest people of our time, that does make me wish I was one.

However, that is aside from the point, do you care to try to find something to support the other's assertion or will you concede that they were wrong?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60637 Nov 24, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And you know nothing about what will happen in the next one month?
Work on your stupid post.
I know as much as can be attained by assessing probability.

You're the master of the double-nut-fudge sundae!... or Sunday ..or maybe just the owner of some Crackerjack toy prize.

Moses! You don't provide the water. God does. He's banned you from the promised land now. How does it feel to be a monkey wandering the desert who will die some day?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60638 Nov 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You idiot the article I posted suggests that afarensis is a chimp ancestor.

So your strategy is to totally ignore any homology that places afarensis in the chimpanzee line.

What demonstrates with certainty that you have no idea what you are talking about, bipedalism is no longer solely a human trait, obligate bipedalism is.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5870/16...
"Our findings blur the picture even further," said Robin Crompton of the University of Liverpool in Liverpool, Great Britain, who is one of the study's authors. "If we're right, it means you can't rely on bipedalism to tell whether you're looking at a human or other ape ancestor. It's been getting more and more difficult for us to say what's a human and what's an ape, and our work makes that much more the case."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/...

Some have suggested that the 3.03.7 Myr-old hominin Australopithecus afarensis did not have a longitudinal arch. This assertion is based on the inclination of the facets of the pedal joints [6], and the presence of a robust navicular tuberosity that may reflect weight bearing on the medial side of the foot [7]. However, there is evidence for the calcaneonavicular (spring) ligament in Au. afarensis [8], a structure that supports the talar head in an arched foot. The lateral tarsometatarsal joint appears to be rigid [9], suggesting the presence of the long plantar ligament, another important soft-tissue component of the longitudinal arch. Furthermore, 3.6 Myr-old footprints from Laetoli, Tanzania may provide evidence of an arch in Au. afarensis [10][12]. Others concur that the makers of the Laetoli prints had an arched foot, but hypothesize that they were made by a hominin other than Au. afarensis [13]. Still others do not see the makers of the Laetoli trackway as possessing particularly well developed arches [14].

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10....

The above demonstrates that these researchers truely have no idea what they are on about past needing more grant money.

So would you like to try again. Your reasonings in relation to bipedalism is outdated and an obvious sign that you are not up to date with the theory you are trying incompetently to support.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60639 Nov 24, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Your post are 100% meaningless. There are countless numbers of Christians, who are scientist.
Definitely NOT you though!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60640 Nov 24, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
More of your "interpretation?" Where did I ever say otherwise? I'll be nice, find anywhere on Topix I said otherwise, you are not limited by just that one single post. But remember to keep it in context.
Noted.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60641 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't preach. I made a comment that wasn't about the bible, you narrow-minded and intolerant liar!
The gap. Noted.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60642 Nov 24, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Normally, I would be a bit taken aback at something like this, but with you, I'm not surprised. Did you just copy paste all that stuff and then skip over my responses to it? Did you miss the part where you posted one thing from a creationist site (garbage), one thing irrelevant to the point at hand, and one thing that supported *my* argument?
That really shows how little you understand what you're talking about. That's why I recommended you did a little reading first, I had to do a little reading about it in the past too, there's no shame in it. But you make yourself look stupid by jumping in feet first, spamming every piece of text you can find - that's how you ended up accidentally posting support for me. You just don't understand the issue.
The point being of course that I can supply links that you can ridicule without any more than your woffly opinion.

I understand perfectly well what I am talking about.

After our discussions in relation to junk dna I would say that absolutely none of you evos here know what you are talking about. That point has been well established.

You lot of idiots also whine when support is not supplied and then whine when research is supplied under the guise of quote mining.

The whole lot of you are nothing more than confused morons that have absolutely no idea what a considered debate should look like.

If you challenge what I say, then articulate an appropriate response with research that states otherwise, as opposed to the above vague woffle that means nothing other than in your opinion you disagree.

This is not hard in the evolutionary world because one can find conflicting and contradictory findings on the same thing, such is the beauty of evolutionary science. eg junk dna or no junk dna, Lucy is an obligate biped or no she isn't, bipedalism is solely a human trait or it isn't, Neanderthsal interbred with homo sapiens and no they didn't, erectus could talk or no they couldn't. You lot certianly know how to keep your eggs in more than one basket!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60643 Nov 24, 2012
1 - anonymous
1 - ToManyLaws
2 - KittenKoder (Charles assumes he is a spokesperson for Christian scientists AND provokes a personal attack from Orangelion.

No, I don't endorse experimenting with one's biology but I've got to give her(?) credit for a kind of verbal pathos akin to the conservation of kinetic energy used in the martial arts.

Kind of reminds of the fight scenes in the new Sherlock Holmes movies. Remember kids, don't embrace drug users as role models!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60644 Nov 24, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> The gap. Noted.
Is that anything like your vacuum?
Orangelion

Rhyl, UK

#60645 Nov 24, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting choice of words, considering that I cannot argue with them. The transgendered people can rightfully claim to be the most courageous and bravest people of our time, that does make me wish I was one.
However, that is aside from the point, do you care to try to find something to support the other's assertion or will you concede that they were wrong?
Transgender people aren't couragious, but only deluded and mentally challenged.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60646 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that anything like your vacuum?
Does this topic have anything to do with the evolution/creation debate?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60647 Nov 24, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Transgender people aren't couragious, but only deluded and mentally challenged.
I suspect that evolutionists that have no ide what they are on about like to discuss philosophies in place of science because their evo science always lets them down.

So far they havce failed the Professors challenge and have absolutely nothing intelligent to say about non coding dna and how that informs TOE, they have changed the meaning of vestigial organs to align with the falsification of the initial definition of no function, they have fraudulently misrepresented the fusion site of human ch2, ervs are nothing more than mythical ghosts.

Now some want to have a shot at supporting the fossil record, which is the topic I like most.

It appears being wrapped up in transgenderr talk demonstrates that most evolutionists have got nothing intelligent to say on the evolution/creation debate. I am not surprised!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60648 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't preach. I made a comment that wasn't about the bible, you narrow-minded and intolerant liar!
Comment?
Your qualities again, outlined.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#60649 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The point being of course that I can supply links that you can ridicule without any more than your woffly opinion.
I understand perfectly well what I am talking about.
After our discussions in relation to junk dna I would say that absolutely none of you evos here know what you are talking about. That point has been well established.
You lot of idiots also whine when support is not supplied and then whine when research is supplied under the guise of quote mining.
The whole lot of you are nothing more than confused morons that have absolutely no idea what a considered debate should look like.
If you challenge what I say, then articulate an appropriate response with research that states otherwise, as opposed to the above vague woffle that means nothing other than in your opinion you disagree.
This is not hard in the evolutionary world because one can find conflicting and contradictory findings on the same thing, such is the beauty of evolutionary science. eg junk dna or no junk dna, Lucy is an obligate biped or no she isn't, bipedalism is solely a human trait or it isn't, Neanderthsal interbred with homo sapiens and no they didn't, erectus could talk or no they couldn't. You lot certianly know how to keep your eggs in more than one basket!
I have read what you post. You don't understand anything about science. Just because you say it, does not make it so and in this case that is a very fair and accurate statement. The fact that you post what you do with such assurety is testament to how little you understand.

Because rubbish has links that you can provide here does not change the condition of that rubbish.

I have looked at several of the links you have provided in the past and they no more support your claims than if you would have provided links to Disney Land. You misinterpret scientific findings and clearly for the purpose of supporting you own beliefs. If your beliefs are so strong, I can imagine how they need to be supported on pillars of lies and misinterpretation.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60650 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Definitely NOT you though!
Check the list of students graduating from each universities, also do a research in their faiths, or practically engage in questionaires, and see their responses.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60651 Nov 24, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Comment?
Your qualities again, outlined.
What is it about you that you absolutely refuse to discuss the topic and have wasted pages and pages going on about this woffle of yours.

Why don't you start a philosophy thread, because it apears you have no intention on speaking to the evolution/creation debate and have never gone anywhere near science.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#60652 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I suspect that evolutionists that have no ide what they are on about like to discuss philosophies in place of science because their evo science always lets them down.
So far they havce failed the Professors challenge and have absolutely nothing intelligent to say about non coding dna and how that informs TOE, they have changed the meaning of vestigial organs to align with the falsification of the initial definition of no function, they have fraudulently misrepresented the fusion site of human ch2, ervs are nothing more than mythical ghosts.
Now some want to have a shot at supporting the fossil record, which is the topic I like most.
It appears being wrapped up in transgenderr talk demonstrates that most evolutionists have got nothing intelligent to say on the evolution/creation debate. I am not surprised!
The theory of evolution and the ongoing research is the basis for the biological sciences. It only lets you down, because you really don't get it.

I have seen your shots at the fossil record. I can't understand how you like it the most, you seem so poorly informed on it.

To date, I have seen nothing you have posted that seriously challenges biological evolution. Again, this goes back to your complete and utter lack of understanding of science, the scientific method, experimentation and evolution.

If you wanted to surprise us you would read some actual works in the field and try to formulate reasonable questions rather than this blather you spout. I feel sorry for people this passionate about dishonesty and stupidity. If only you really understood, you wouldn't feel so threatened by the world around you and the people that devote themselves to understanding it.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60653 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that anything like your vacuum?
The quest continues.

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
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 2 min Alias -_- 28,841
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... 6 min I Am No One_ 751
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 7 min ThatsAllFolks 140,085
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 8 min Hoosier Hillbilly 18,190
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 9 min Princess Hey 4,798
Bill & Hillary ( Haiti Earthquake ) 15 min Hoosier Hillbilly 11
Word Association (Jun '10) 17 min ThatsAllFolks 27,323
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 48 min ThatsAllFolks 161,345
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 50 min MrsGladToBeMe 8,324
News The trooper fired at the motorcycle, and then d... 1 hr TALLYHO 8541 82
motorcycle traveling stories 5 hr Mega Monster 622
More from around the web