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
58,801 - 58,820 of 113,246 Comments Last updated 41 min ago

“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.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62906
Dec 3, 2012
 
Orriapa paquia wrote:
<quoted text>
Without cell replication there is no cell alive period!
Without DNA there is no cell replication!! period!!.
But given there are cells, and that there is DNA, and that it is a very dense source of information. Either by starting from there, or, like Darwin, just by inferring from other evidence that such a mechanism could account for the results he observed, one can certainly come to many other useful conclusions.

No harm in knowing more about how it all got started, whether it is possible that an even more rudimentary kind of evolution brought it about, or whether it was actually the hand of God that started it, either way there are lots of useful further predictions that one can make and then test for consistency.

Certainly, if one knew that God explicitly started the process, as opposed to it just being an inherent possibility of his initial creation, or if one could know for sure that there was no such force remotely like the God that we conceive of that did it, one might be able to refine one's predictions even more, but that might or might not add a lot to what the basic theory of evolution yields.

Certainly also, every facet of understanding exactly how DNA works might also yield further insights, but it's still possible that those refinements would not affect the broad picture. Never concluding, never discussing, never predicting until you know every detail down to the last quantum mechanical rule or the exact will and mood of God, might mean you never get to first base. It's like as if Newton had to wait for Einstein before he worked out the three laws of mechanics, and Einstein had to wait for Newton before he even considered relativity -- it would be a total impasse. So in that sense, your requirement for someone to know great detail about DNA to be able to talk about evolution, in that sense you are just obstructing and not helping.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62907
Dec 3, 2012
 
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
Be fair man, Charles has only ever been polite, why are people ganging up on him and insulting him, it doesn't matter if you are Christian or not, there is no need for the aggression that some have displayed, constitution lover was deserving of insults, but Charles and bat foy have always been polite and should be treated fairly
Thanks.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62908
Dec 3, 2012
 
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Birds are warm blooded.
Woops, that's right, I must have been half asleep!

Birds are warm blooded and dinos are cold blooded, a big difference!

I'll fix it.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62909
Dec 3, 2012
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Charles isn't always polite. I direct you to the fact that he called me "Buffoon." I just turned it around a bit. I like Charles despite his often strange ideas and I have never been unkind to Bat Foy to my knowledge. He may be able to contradict that but I hope not. There are others for whom, I will make no appologies for my behavior.
Your biased statements and use of language, led me to use that word.

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.

•••
•••