Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 220530 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.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#63053 Dec 4, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> No. Humans through the application of faith, are able to use coal for moving train, tarring roads, and burning fuels, etc. Think!
You better reread what you posted, because it comes off sounding like the bedding of coal is a faith-based phenomenon.

By the way, I don't really think faith is required in the way that you describe it and there are different kinds of faith. I think you are casting a pretty wide net and trying to include them all with religious faith.

I know, I know. Deaf ears. But I try.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#63054 Dec 4, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes but when truth is relative and not really absolute...
So if you are stupid in Montana, you may not be stupid in New York? You may have something going for you after all.

“Ignore the trolls”

Level 6

Since: Oct 08

Spalding, UK

#63055 Dec 4, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes but when truth is relative and not really absolute...
No, belief is relative, truth is absolute. In spite of the phrase, there is no such thing as a half-truth: it is either true or it isn't.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#63056 Dec 4, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Kong stopped replying to me when I showed him how silly his research link was. That of course in no way detracted from the fact that there are perfectly clear modern bird footprints dated to 212mya that evos have to go into confusion to realign with their flawed paradigm.
So in your unbiased, expert opinion, those footprints are of modern birds made 212 mya. Do you have any further insight on this to further illuminate this issue? No? I thought not.

1. The origin and creation of these footprints are still under scrutiny and nothing conclusive has yet been found.

2. There is excitement about such finds, but no confusion.

3. Scientist are hardly shocked when new evidence comes along to adjust and fine tune the timelines associated with the evolutionary development of life on Earth.

4. Whether these findings fit the findings of noted avian biologist and paleontologist Dr. MazHere or not, they will not change the theory of evolution.

This is what you call a drowning man reaching for any straw that floats by to save himself. In this case the drowning man is MazHere and the anti-evolution creationists.

I suspect most people stop repsonding to you because doing so becomes pointless to them after awhile. I agree with them, but I believe you must endure the pointless and ignorant, because ignoring them lets their disease spread.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#63057 Dec 4, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, belief is relative, truth is absolute. In spite of the phrase, there is no such thing as a half-truth: it is either true or it isn't.
It can't be said any more succinctly or simply than that.

Agree very much.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#63058 Dec 4, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, belief is relative, truth is absolute. In spite of the phrase, there is no such thing as a half-truth: it is either true or it isn't.
Really?

Interesting...

That isn't what evolutionists and athiests have told me...you see your moving the goal post...shifting the "truth"...that has been told me over and over again to suit your argument thereby making my point...

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#63059 Dec 4, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It can't be said any more succinctly or simply than that.
Agree very much.
Absolutely?

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#63060 Dec 4, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes but when truth is relative and not really absolute...
WTF is this?

I really will give credit to you all. I don't know how you can debate with someone like this. I would find bashing my head into a brick wall to be more enjoyable.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#63061 Dec 4, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF is this?
I really will give credit to you all. I don't know how you can debate with someone like this. I would find bashing my head into a brick wall to be more enjoyable.
They are all like that. Look at the posts of MazHere, Knightmare, Charles Idemi, Occapi paquia (whatever) and many more.

It is like arguing with the cast of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."

There does seem to be a method to some of the madness, though it is well managed.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#63062 Dec 4, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely?
Yes.

However, I would check into that relative stupidity thing and move to the state that provides you the most. Do you think a red state or a blue state? Maybe another country perhaps.

You ponder that a while and get back to us.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#63063 Dec 4, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes but when truth is relative and not really absolute...
So Jesus isn't the son of God and savior? The Bible isn't the literal word of God? There was no Adam and Eve? There was no Noah and a Worldwide flood with a boat full of stinky, tired, filthy animals and the creatures they brought along with them.

Is truth only relative when it is the truth you don't subscribe to?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#63064 Dec 4, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you hate kittens, Maz?
Also, sympathies with our cricket team DEMOLISHING YOURS IN THE THIRD TEST!!
Apart from Kitten on here I like kittens and hate girley games like cricket.

I do like evolutionists that evade science, like most here. That gives me joolies for the day.

A couple gave it a shot for a couple of posts, failed miserably, and now you want to talk about kittens.

For starters. Why don't you evos tell us how arch is not an intermediate anything. Arch is a variety of dinosaur and has theropod traits, like a thick and boomerang shaped wish bone that looks nothing like a bird wishbone, what so ever.

I think evolutionaruy researchers need to get new evogoggles.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#63065 Dec 4, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So in your unbiased, expert opinion, those footprints are of modern birds made 212 mya. Do you have any further insight on this to further illuminate this issue? No? I thought not.
1. The origin and creation of these footprints are still under scrutiny and nothing conclusive has yet been found.
2. There is excitement about such finds, but no confusion.
3. Scientist are hardly shocked when new evidence comes along to adjust and fine tune the timelines associated with the evolutionary development of life on Earth.
4. Whether these findings fit the findings of noted avian biologist and paleontologist Dr. MazHere or not, they will not change the theory of evolution.
This is what you call a drowning man reaching for any straw that floats by to save himself. In this case the drowning man is MazHere and the anti-evolution creationists.
I suspect most people stop repsonding to you because doing so becomes pointless to them after awhile. I agree with them, but I believe you must endure the pointless and ignorant, because ignoring them lets their disease spread.
You may not that my siz points are accompanied by research to support my view.

You and evo researchers are as blind a rock and about as clever. There is no concern on my part about what the footprints look like.

It is your reseachers that have to scratch around like a gaggle of geese and poof them into something that saves your bird paradigm from falsification, again.

You have offered your opinion which amounts to hubris.

Your reserchers are more confused than ever they were and everything I have spoken to demonstrtes it from the deteriorating genome, to their crap about junk dna, to their changing of definitions to suit the data, to TOE's misrepresentation of genomic and fossil evidence.

Evolutionists remain gobsmacked as their flavours of the month turn to rot.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#63066 Dec 4, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So Jesus isn't the son of God and savior? The Bible isn't the literal word of God? There was no Adam and Eve? There was no Noah and a Worldwide flood with a boat full of stinky, tired, filthy animals and the creatures they brought along with them.
Is truth only relative when it is the truth you don't subscribe to?
Well, that last question is actually implied in my posts...

So Darwin never existed? Darwin's theories were only meant as fiction? There really is no missing link?

The universe didn't just pop into existence out of nothing because a piece of dust had nothing to do?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#63067 Dec 4, 2012
See the difference between hubris and supporting an assertion.

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 hubris 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 hubris 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.

Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by the hubris needed to explain the data.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#63068 Dec 4, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So Jesus isn't the son of God and savior? The Bible isn't the literal word of God? There was no Adam and Eve? There was no Noah and a Worldwide flood with a boat full of stinky, tired, filthy animals and the creatures they brought along with them.
Is truth only relative when it is the truth you don't subscribe to?
Too bad for you evos that data suggests the species on earth had a single male and female common ancestor. The evidence for any cohorts has amazingly disappeared out of the genome.

Once again that is what even biased data indicates and evos have to evoke their evolutionary ASSUMPTION of cohorts to explain the data away.

The data supports a creationist paradigm. Hubris supports TOE.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#63069 Dec 4, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
The nation Israel was a man-made creation by the United Nations in 1948. You can post all you like that there was a Great Flood, sadly archaeology does not agree with you. There were a series of flods in a variety of areas. They do not tie together, indeed some are separated by over 1,000 years. If you want to take the bible as a literal work, these are the sort of problems that arise. As a book of faith, no difficulty, but as a book of facts, no chance.
Oh! so, you mean the people were also created in 1948.
Listen, Israel as a nation has been in existence for the past millennium. It was the Romans that destroyed the nation, and renamed it Palestine.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#63070 Dec 4, 2012
MazHere wrote:
See the difference between hubris and supporting an assertion.
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 hubris 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 a 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 hubris 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 creationist 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.
Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by the hubris needed to explain the data.
Dan, I think TOE should be excluded from science streams and put in with philosophies. TOE is a philosophy of faith that is suppported by misrepresentation and hubris.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#63071 Dec 4, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Better tell that to Einstein, so he knows his theory of relativity doesn't hold water. After all, he did not have faith.
Faith is not limited to religion. It is all embracing. God welcomes and accepts good things.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#63072 Dec 4, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You may not that my siz points are accompanied by research to support my view.
You and evo researchers are as blind a rock and about as clever. There is no concern on my part about what the footprints look like.
It is your reseachers that have to scratch around like a gaggle of geese and poof them into something that saves your bird paradigm from falsification, again.
You have offered your opinion which amounts to hubris.
Your reserchers are more confused than ever they were and everything I have spoken to demonstrtes it from the deteriorating genome, to their crap about junk dna, to their changing of definitions to suit the data, to TOE's misrepresentation of genomic and fossil evidence.
Evolutionists remain gobsmacked as their flavours of the month turn to rot.
Noted it, I have gone out of my way to show how you mischaracterize the use of these references.

It is always amusing to be judge stupid by a complete moron. You have me laughing again.

Bird paradigm? This is part of your misuse of the references. You have never gone into detail about how and what would result if these turn out to be truly the footprints of modern-like birds. You have gagged on a length about how it will destroy the theory of evolution, but with no substance to support that.

No, I have clearly called you out for your missuse of a few selected articles that do not do what you claim they do. I don't really need to offer supporting papers to do that.

You have offered your opinion, which amounts to brain damaged nonsense.

Yours is a typical trick used to overwhelm a solid position. Make a great deal of noise about nothing and misdirect the argument away from the main points. You aren't doing anything new or original. It was easy to catch and now you are flopping around trying to get back into the water so you can swim away.

No, all you have demonstrated is that you have become aware, probably through some organization that feeds you your opinion, about some possibly interesting data at the cutting edge of research. In doing so, you have demonstrated your piss poor understanding of science, the theory of evolution and even how to read and interepret your own references.

Now, declare victory and move along.

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 19 min Fin Dogg 213,079
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 22 min SweLL GirL 10,338
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 26 min SweLL GirL 32,703
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 27 min SweLL GirL 7,172
Trolliday Inn -- We'll leave the light on for you 44 min Spotted Girl 14
Last Word is First Word (no "breast" word please) (Jul '15) 46 min RowdyRulzRacing 2,334
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 49 min RowdyRulzRacing 46,229
News Grieving father: 'I don't play Trump songs anym... 3 hr Spotted Girl 55
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr pizzin around 73,329
News Rihanna: Why She Refused To Watch Her 'Weird' '... 3 hr Spotted Girl 42
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 9 hr oddie 21,423
More from around the web