Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
58,261 - 58,280 of 112,980 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62324
Dec 1, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>You can't have it both ways. You can't say that only the "nice" parts of the Bible are inspired by God. It either is or it isn't. I go with the "isn't". That means when science clearly shows parts of the Bible to be false it is not biggee. You throw out the bad parts but keep the good. If you want to keep some nonsense in then you have to keep all nonsense in.
Yes the bible is divinely inspired but what Moses was doing at the time was trying to establish law for a young nation. It's neat to read those parts and see Moses was is a spot he wasn't prepared for. Like if a man dig a pit and another mans donkey falls into the pit the man who dug the pit must pay for the donkey. These issues are what a leader had to deal with when they had no government. Moses also did things outside of Gods will and 40 years of wondering in the desert is what he got for it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62325
Dec 1, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I think we have talked enough for you to know that while I believe in God I'm not stupid. I am not the church of 200 years ago I don't want to kill anyone. My belief remains unchanged I am not trying to convince you to come to Jesus and be "saved". Why do I have to ask the same questions over and over to get a answer from you people? I just want to see if you see the moral problems I see? These are not Christian or atheist issues but people issues. Honesty, respect, and integrity.
I have not attributed those faults to you yet.

Yes, I agree some people can be "saved" by Jesus. Of course that does not mean he is real.

I am merely pointing out that certain parts of the Bible have been debunked. I did not say that the whole thing was debunked, let's save that for another debate. There are countless Christians who believe the theory of evolution. They still believe the latter parts of the Bible.

Don't try to make this an evolution against Christianity debate, it isn't.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62326
Dec 1, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes the bible is divinely inspired but what Moses was doing at the time was trying to establish law for a young nation. It's neat to read those parts and see Moses was is a spot he wasn't prepared for. Like if a man dig a pit and another mans donkey falls into the pit the man who dug the pit must pay for the donkey. These issues are what a leader had to deal with when they had no government. Moses also did things outside of Gods will and 40 years of wondering in the desert is what he got for it.
No, you are still making excuses. And a lot of these flaws in the Bible are in books long after the Penteteuch.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62327
Dec 1, 2012
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Well, I have just explained a buttload for having no understanding. Of course coming from you that might mean I do understand, it is hard to interpret much of what you post.
I thought you said without faith there is no science? Can you stick to one outrageous claim at a time.
One arguments can lead to another. Next ?

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62328
Dec 1, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>No, you are still making excuses. And a lot of these flaws in the Bible are in books long after the Penteteuch.
I'm not saying that what is in the bible concerning rape murder and such is right.
However how can you be set against God for those reasons when Darwin was racist and so is his theory? Is their another religion of evolution or does it all follow Charles Darwin.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62329
Dec 1, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not saying that what is in the bible concerning rape murder and such is right.
However how can you be set against God for those reasons when Darwin was racist and so is his theory? Is their another religion of evolution or does it all follow Charles Darwin.
I will never understand why fundies think arguing the smart people are just as jacked up as they are is a reasonable debate strategy.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62330
Dec 1, 2012
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You better consult with Charles, he is our resident expert on the ownership of language. He is deeply in debt to the Gibbers for his use of gibberish on this forum. He probably knows the current rates.
I call that an expensive joke. Next?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62331
Dec 1, 2012
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That is a very good point. We have no clue what form an intelligent alien species might possess. It could be an interstellar race of inquisitive plants.
I just hope they don't give my local corn a good offer on the purchase of some of us. I don't have anything suitable to wear on a long space voyage.
Worse yet they should show up at harvest time. That could be the end of us.
I'm nearly sure that I stole that from Larry Niven.

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62332
Dec 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>I will never understand why fundies think arguing the smart people are just as jacked up as they are is a reasonable debate strategy.
That is a very good point. So go find a smart person and come back. Ill debate them.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62333
Dec 1, 2012
 
Or perhaps the immortal RAH.

Drat, now I'll have to look it up.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62334
Dec 1, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
Ok than why bother talking about it.
Why bother claiming that the Bible is historically accurate?

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62335
Dec 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>Why bother claiming that the Bible is historically accurate?
Really because I can. You guys post opinions and theory and I laugh and post mine. Than you guys shoot a couple insults than post yours. I do this for fun. Sometimes you guys say something that makes a good point than 2 min on google and their is another theory showing why yours is no good. I do not care where we came from I believe the bible. I have absolute faith in it. Until God himself hops in the his godmobile rides down here and says hey man that whole bible thing was a joke to see how many people would take it serious. I'm going to stick with it.
Why does my belief bother you?
Why if God doesn't exist do you feel the need to debate it?
Do you spend as much time trying to prove that other "fairy tales" don't exist or does the Christian God hold a special place for your "debunking" debate sessions?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62336
Dec 1, 2012
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Charles do you ever sometimes just stop and step back and think maybe I don't know what I am talking about. It seems like you believe you are an expert on almost everything that comes out of these discussions. You get hammered for far more than just your religious views. Don't you think that would require at least a modicum of reflection and critical evaluation?
For instance you respond to my post by saying I have zero understanding of what the word faith means. Based on my post, that is the answer you come up with. Not a response to my point that you are expanding the definition of the word outside of the parameters of the argument. You aren't addressing the point. You aren't even staying on point. You are operating with a moving target strategy for your definition of concepts. Your logic doesn't follow any logical pattern. I don't know if it will help, I'm just saying.
No. I am a learner like every one else.
I argue on what i think and feel is right.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62337
Dec 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent.
So then you admit that it is the perfect transitional fossil. It has wings and feathers like a bird, but lacks the reversed hallux, has teeth, and has claws on the front of its wings.
Could you ask for an animal that was anymore halfway in between a dinosaur and a bird? I didn't think so.
It is no more transitional than a cat is between a mouse and a dog.

Arch is no more transitional than a bat is between a mouse and a bird, or a flying fish is between a fish and a bird.

Many non birds have wings and dinos are supposedly known to have feathers. Traits pop in and out of organisms as it was Gods pleasure to create them and many have gone extinct.

..many of the features that supposedly characterise Archaeopteryx and other birds, such as feathers, a wishbone and long powerful forearms, are also found in deinonychosaurs.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

So basically evos can straw grab at whatever aides their cause and send the rest to the convergent evolution pile and call that evidence. How convenient!

I call being able to present a perfect example of modern bird footprints with a reversed hallux dated to 212mya as also being able to offer uncomplicated evidence for creation. I am able to take them for exactly what they appear to be, before evolutionists get a hold of it and add their hubris to it as to why it can't be just what it looks like. Data supports creation, Hubris supports TOE.

Evos grab anything they can find and try to present it as flavour of the month. In and out they go sometimes. Arch is feathered dinosaur no more related to birds than any other dinosaur with avian traits, like feathers.

To extrapolate my the statement that, arch is not a bird, into my stating arch is the perfect transitional fossil, also reflects a delusional and desperate state.

If arch is not a direct ancestor of birds then it is your transitional inbetween whatever and extinction. Great evidence!

As I said, I can support my views on creationism and my interpretation of data could not possibly be worse than the hubris and instability evolutionists have to present.

So I gather it is easier to misrepresent me in desperation than to have an opinion of your own, obviously. I'd call that ego stroking in desperation!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62338
Dec 1, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not saying that what is in the bible concerning rape murder and such is right.
However how can you be set against God for those reasons when Darwin was racist and so is his theory? Is their another religion of evolution or does it all follow Charles Darwin.
What the Fu....?

No, evolution is not a racist theory. And the tales you hear of Darwin being racist are creationist lies.

Don't trust creationist sites. They admit openly that they will not be honest if pressed. They have all been caught lying numerous times. There is no such thing as an honest informed creationist. Right now you are getting off because you seem rather ignorant. Education heals ignorance. You are an adult, it is time to learn.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62339
Dec 1, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
To be totally honest here kitten I chose that God because he was the best dressed his shoes matched his robe.(Kidding)
I was drinking pretty heavy one night and I was standing on a bridge about to jump into the river and in my super smart drunken stuper I said "God if my life is ment to be anything more than a big pile of shiz you won't let me drown" than I stepped up on the side of the rail and as I went to jump a cop grabbed my belt and I went to jail. That was the first of many answers to prayer. After that night I never drank again and I haven't felt the need to try to test God or kill myself.
Actually, that would be coincidental and an excellent example of how humans need to care more about each other than a mythical being. The cop could have just said "well, that god will just have to let him know" instead of acting, then where would you be? Yes, things like that have happened a lot, in the name of the same god you are ascribing to. Children suffer from illnesses that are easily preventable because the parents "believe" their god will heal them, and many of them die because of that.

Now the chances of a cop spotting you are not that low, they're pretty high in the modern age, actually. With the population level and the technological state, it's almost impossible for a suicide attempt to succeed these days, there's always a cop or concerned human somewhere nearby, watching. It appears like a "miracle" to the inebriated and low mental capacity induced by depressive states, but the reality is far more common, and even more miraculous than any religious mythology could describe. It's human compassion, human caring, humanity itself is evolving to the point where we are caring more for each other, and that's the reasons we are still around at all.

Instead of seeking invisible hands made of wishful thinking, reach for the real hands that are reaching out to you. The human race needs more humans, and fewer robots.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62340
Dec 1, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Really because I can. You guys post opinions and theory and I laugh and post mine. Than you guys shoot a couple insults than post yours. I do this for fun. Sometimes you guys say something that makes a good point than 2 min on google and their is another theory showing why yours is no good. I do not care where we came from I believe the bible. I have absolute faith in it. Until God himself hops in the his godmobile rides down here and says hey man that whole bible thing was a joke to see how many people would take it serious. I'm going to stick with it.
Why does my belief bother you?
Why if God doesn't exist do you feel the need to debate it?
Do you spend as much time trying to prove that other "fairy tales" don't exist or does the Christian God hold a special place for your "debunking" debate sessions?
To field the last few inquiries, we debate because it is human nature to seek out opposition, the push-pull creates a learning atmosphere for the mind, setting it into logic mode to assimilate new information. The problem is that the religious people offer no new information, at all, so it gets redundant. Eventually all that is left is to mock the people who refuse to grow or learn anything, and that can keep the mind in that same state of logical assimilation. In short, it's a past-time, like any other vice, it offers a mild distraction from the rest of life, which can, at times, be very hectic.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62341
Dec 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to think that if you ignore things, they don't really exist. I suppose that sort of denial is essential to maintaining you silly beliefs.
Who are you? Obviously another evolutionist that likes to offer hubris when they are gobsmacked. Is this too hard for you to understand?

1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
2. Creationists predictions are vestigial organs are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to toddle off and redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu...
3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plant s to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment . Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since. Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet. The data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...
4. Beneficial mutations have an overwhelmingly negative effect due to epistasis. All the recent data supports this. Clearly this is evidence in support of creationism and an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt for billions of years. Evos have come up with many theoretical assumptions to explain this in evolutionary terms and why TOE is not falsified. Hence the data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE. The data supports creationism and the woffley excuses hypothesised supports TOE.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
5. All data suggests the genome is deteriorating. Again this is creationist support demonstrating that adaptation is limited. Again evos have to toddle off and come up with some story and convoluted hypothesis as to why a deteriorating genome does not falsify TOE. The data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...
6. Evolutionary supports are derived from arbitrary and pick a box morphological and genomic homology that changes like the wind and biased algorithmic magic that is no better than any algorithmic magic a creationists can provide. This is supported by an evolutionary history of falsifications, instability and change.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...
None of the above links are to creationist sites, Some speak to published data. Many of the above links are to the actual peer reviewed work.

So far all evos have shown is the mess their theory is in and how confused researchers are, and supported my view. eg whales, aves.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62342
Dec 1, 2012
 
You're like that lady in the movie Mist, Stephen King's movie. Crazy to the end, even if it means killing people to prove it.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Who are you? Obviously another evolutionist that likes to offer hubris when they are gobsmacked. Is this too hard for you to understand?
1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
2. Creationists predictions are vestigial organs are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to toddle off and redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu...
3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plant s to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment . Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since. Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet. The data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...
4. Beneficial mutations have an overwhelmingly negative effect due to epistasis. All the recent data supports this. Clearly this is evidence in support of creationism and an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt for billions of years. Evos have come up with many theoretical assumptions to explain this in evolutionary terms and why TOE is not falsified. Hence the data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE. The data supports creationism and the woffley excuses hypothesised supports TOE.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
5. All data suggests the genome is deteriorating. Again this is creationist support demonstrating that adaptation is limited. Again evos have to toddle off and come up with some story and convoluted hypothesis as to why a deteriorating genome does not falsify TOE. The data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...
6. Evolutionary supports are derived from arbitrary and pick a box morphological and genomic homology that changes like the wind and biased algorithmic magic that is no better than any algorithmic magic a creationists can provide. This is supported by an evolutionary history of falsifications, instability and change.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...
None of the above links are to creationist sites, Some speak to published data. Many of the above links are to the actual peer reviewed work.
So far all evos have shown is the mess their theory is in and how confused researchers are, and supported my view. eg whales, aves.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62343
Dec 1, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
It is no more transitional than a cat is between a mouse and a dog.
Arch is no more transitional than a bat is between a mouse and a bird, or a flying fish is between a fish and a bird.
Many non birds have wings and dinos are supposedly known to have feathers. Traits pop in and out of organisms as it was Gods pleasure to create them and many have gone extinct.
..many of the features that supposedly characterise Archaeopteryx and other birds, such as feathers, a wishbone and long powerful forearms, are also found in deinonychosaurs.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
So basically evos can straw grab at whatever aides their cause and send the rest to the convergent evolution pile and call that evidence. How convenient!
I call being able to present a perfect example of modern bird footprints with a reversed hallux dated to 212mya as also being able to offer uncomplicated evidence for creation. I am able to take them for exactly what they appear to be, before evolutionists get a hold of it and add their hubris to it as to why it can't be just what it looks like. Data supports creation, Hubris supports TOE.
Evos grab anything they can find and try to present it as flavour of the month. In and out they go sometimes. Arch is feathered dinosaur no more related to birds than any other dinosaur with avian traits, like feathers.
To extrapolate my the statement that, arch is not a bird, into my stating arch is the perfect transitional fossil, also reflects a delusional and desperate state.
If arch is not a direct ancestor of birds then it is your transitional inbetween whatever and extinction. Great evidence!
As I said, I can support my views on creationism and my interpretation of data could not possibly be worse than the hubris and instability evolutionists have to present.
So I gather it is easier to misrepresent me in desperation than to have an opinion of your own, obviously. I'd call that ego stroking in desperation!
You ducked the question, and of course you had to. You could not find a better example of a transitional species and so you duck, lie, and run away. I can hear your flapping blue waffle from here.

Good night Maz.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••