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
58,761 - 58,780 of 114,746 Comments Last updated 45 min ago

Since: Sep 12

Hurst, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62886
Dec 3, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>Bad Boy, lol

readers digest, does anyone still them?
I have some from 1967 back when they were hard back books about 2 inches thick with short stories. My mom gets the small mag I think still

Since: Sep 12

Hurst, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62887
Dec 3, 2012
 
straa wrote:
<quoted text>Ok then, be like that
Come on?! That should have at least gotten a chuckle.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62888
Dec 3, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Those who choose to believe in Evolution only see things as science reveals it to them. There is no real way of understanding the true beginning of our earth and universe and life if you do not believe in miracles. God has the power to do what the Bible said he did.
What you say seems to be a non-sequitar to me. How come most Christians see science as helping reveal the world that God created? Is God required to keep nudging every atomic particle around? Who are you to insist that God cannot set up a system that includes evolution, and allows traces of it's actions to remain behind in the fossil evidence? That evidence is older than the bible, and deserves at least as much respect. Or else why would he leave it for us?

Since: Sep 12

Hurst, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62889
Dec 3, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>When you bring up something of note I will quote scientific papers.

So far you have nothing. If you can't see that you have nothing then there is no hope for you.
Do you the Abraham of the bible is also the father of Islam?

“Ignore the trolls”

Level 6

Since: Oct 08

Poole, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62890
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Far from that. I am not ready to persuade any one on anything but to defend what i think is right. The bible is a book of historical truth, whether you like to hear that or not. Among the religious books archaeologically, the bible stands out.
Posting a repeated lie will not make it true. The bible is not historically accurate. I will elucidate for your little brain. Impossible for Adam amd Eve to be the only humans - biologically we would all be inter-bred (and where did Cain and Abel's partners come from?). The story is an allegory. No historical corroborative record of Exodus ever happening, in an empire that kept detailed records. Jericho was not a walled city (from archaeology) when supposedly Joshua blew the trumpets to bring down the walls. No archaeological evidence for the Great Flood (and again, if it were true - gene pool would again come from one family).

That does not detract from the bible as a book of faith. All societies have myths and legends. What does detract from christianity is making false claims about the accuracy of the book. That is the problem with a literal approach - it is not sustained by other evidence.
Orriapa paquia

Lubbock, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62891
Dec 3, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
When you bring up something of note I will quote scientific papers.
So far you have nothing. If you can't see that you have nothing then there is no hope for you.
So heres a summary for you:

I asked you to provide data: nothing
I asked you if you understood cell replication: nothing
I asked you if you understand evolution/natural selection: nothing
I asked you if you understand DNA: nothing
I asked you about R Dawkins: nothing

I guess now i can explain to others that the theory of evolution is explains DNA by a trip from Chicago to seattle. LOL!!!

Some sort of scientists evolutionists are that no one chimed in to help you out of your hole while you were getting educated.

Bye

“Ignore the trolls”

Level 6

Since: Oct 08

Poole, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62892
Dec 3, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Would you just shut up and learn for once. English(modern English) started in England, though, it had influences from several European and other languages, but modern English as a language developed and started in England.
Old English is akin to German.
Stamping your feet and saying it is so because you say so, when all historical evidence contradicts you is pathetic. Who were the population of Britain? Do you know from where they came? Because if you do, you would realise you are yet again posting unmitigated balderdash.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62893
Dec 3, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you the Abraham of the bible is also the father of Islam?
I know very little of Islam. He may be. He may not be. So what?

“Ignore the trolls”

Level 6

Since: Oct 08

Poole, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62894
Dec 3, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't know don't care won't care. I was only explaining a post put out by someone else. As far as I'm concerned my "narrow mind" is switched on and when you're standing in front of God you can convince him he doesn't exist.
Glad to see you're not answering the question asked. I will repeat it - what about all the religions that do not subscribe to the christian God and the concept of satan? What happens in their case?

Good to see the light of chrisitanity shining through in the care you show for your fellow man.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62895
Dec 3, 2012
 
Orriapa paquia wrote:
<quoted text>
So heres a summary for you:
I asked you to provide data: nothing
I asked you if you understood cell replication: nothing
I asked you if you understand evolution/natural selection: nothing
I asked you if you understand DNA: nothing
I asked you about R Dawkins: nothing
I guess now i can explain to others that the theory of evolution is explains DNA by a trip from Chicago to seattle. LOL!!!
Some sort of scientists evolutionists are that no one chimed in to help you out of your hole while you were getting educated.
Bye
No, you asked a stupid question.

I pointed out that it was a stupid question.

You asked another stupid question.

You asked another stupid question.

You asked another stupid quetion.

Do you see a trend here.

Ask a reasonable question and I will be more than happy to answer it.

Meanwhile, here is a statement for you:

There is literally mountains of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution. There is no scientific evidence that supports creationism.

This statement I am more than willing to stand behind and show you how it is true.

“Ignore the trolls”

Level 6

Since: Oct 08

Poole, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62896
Dec 3, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I have explained this, but he keeps bringing unecessary issues.
English( modern) started in England, with influences from European and other foreign tongue. But the language itself, is unique to England. That is why, in the whole wide world, they are known alone, as the English.
No, you have given us the Charles version of events and anounced it as the truth (how unusual). Unfortunately, as per normal, it is incorrect. And now you shift to post of today's language, which was not the issue. Btw, English is not unique to England - or are you posting is Swahili?

“Ignore the trolls”

Level 6

Since: Oct 08

Poole, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62897
Dec 3, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Read through my post, i talked about this, three times. They spoke a form of German known as old English.
These tribes left that place completely, geographically in modern sense, that place is Germany and parts of Denmark. But the language called old English under went a series of changes or developments from old, middle to modern English, this development is not unique to Germany or Denmark, but to England.
Old English is akin to German and not to modern English. Do your research.
At last, you're getting there. Unfortunately this is not what you posted originally. No shift in position, I'm glad to note.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62898
Dec 3, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I was reiterating what someone else had already told you, Poe. But let's see if I can't dig something up for you.
Claim - bacteria never turn into new things (whatever that means. It's as if the author expects a T Rex to pop out of an Ecoli population).
Rebuttal - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2...
"Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity."
That was easy, Poe. But I'm probably just an enforcer for the evolutionist conspiracy to take over the world and destroy religion, so I'll understand if you ignore me.
So what species did the E Coli bacteria that grew on citrate in aerobic environment evolve into? So increase in cell size and fitness and diversity in this bacteria is evidence for the evolution of 'bacteria'. There is no mention of bacteria evolving into a something non bacteria or did I miss anything. Because that would be the first thing that scientists would mention. Give it osmotic shock and that bacteria decreases its ability to survive for long periods.

Just because bacteria can become resistant to penicillin for example, doesn't mean it's going to evolve into something other than a bacteria.
Orriapa paquia

Lubbock, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62899
Dec 3, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you asked a stupid question.
I pointed out that it was a stupid question.
You asked another stupid question.
You asked another stupid question.
You asked another stupid quetion.
Do you see a trend here.
Ask a reasonable question and I will be more than happy to answer it.
Meanwhile, here is a statement for you:
There is literally mountains of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution. There is no scientific evidence that supports creationism.
This statement I am more than willing to stand behind and show you how it is true.
A little too late for today,
Why are you fixated with creationism when you cant even explain or understand evolution?
I am more than willing to explore with you your last statement on the condition that you show some common decency and respect for others opinions and if you are wrong accept it. If not its just a waste of my time.
Ill see what your answer is tomorrow

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62900
Dec 3, 2012
 
Orriapa paquia wrote:
<quoted text>
A little too late for today,
Why are you fixated with creationism when you cant even explain or understand evolution?
I am more than willing to explore with you your last statement on the condition that you show some common decency and respect for others opinions and if you are wrong accept it. If not its just a waste of my time.
Ill see what your answer is tomorrow
I can explain evolution.

I will show you common decency if you admit that you were wrong from the start and then escalated your error.

One more time, you made a foolish statement that you were not willing to defend. It was obviously wrong. When offered an analog to help you understand your error you dove deeper into idiocy to defend yourself.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62901
Dec 3, 2012
 
Orriapa paquia wrote:
<quoted text>
A little too late for today,
Why are you fixated with creationism when you cant even explain or understand evolution?
I am more than willing to explore with you your last statement on the condition that you show some common decency and respect for others opinions and if you are wrong accept it. If not its just a waste of my time.
Ill see what your answer is tomorrow
Don't expect anything new tomorrow.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62902
Dec 3, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
What language did they speak on the boats on the way to Great Britain?
Who says that Old English was a "form of German"?
<quoted text>
"Germanic" and "German" are two different things. You have been told that before. Why do you keep forgetting?
<quoted text>
You can't change the goalposts, Charles. We were talking about the origin of *English*(not the origin of Middle English or of Modern English), and English includes *Old English*.
Where did *Old English* start, Charles?
A simple question for you, are the people of this generation speaking old English or modern English?
Answer that question with all sincerity.
Again, is old English similar to modern English?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62903
Dec 3, 2012
 
Orriapa paquia wrote:
Subduction zone:
How can someone believe in evolution if you cannot say/explain how it all started?
If you cannot explain or prove the first step then what good is the rest?
In regards to the bible can you tell me where it says about evolution? id like to check it out
I believe this is your first post in our discussion.

This statement is wrong. You cannot defend it, it is an idiotic statement.

And to add to your idiocy I did not say anything about the Bible said anything about evolution. If you had read your Bible you would have seen that it claims that abiogenesis happened. So you are both a poor scientist and a poor Christian.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62904
Dec 3, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You're changing the goalposts, Charles. We were talking about *English*, not "Modern English".
*English* includes *Old English*.
To answer the question of where *English* originated, you have to answer the question of where *Old English* originated.
That's the question you keep avoiding, Charles. That's why you keep moving the goalposts.
No. You are the one not getting the clue, are we speaking old English today or modern English?
If we are speaking old English universally, i will agree to your stand, but no.
Old English was started by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, who left mainland Europe for England in majority. So, the origin is to England and not any other places.
After all they are known as the English globally and alone.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62905
Dec 3, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't expect anything new tomorrow.
I can't help it if the man will not admit when he was wrong. And not only wrong, but fall on your face stupid wrong.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••