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
59,761 - 59,780 of 114,439 Comments Last updated 28 min ago

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63893
Dec 7, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>So Catholicism is not Christian??
Catholics are Christian however you can be a born catholic or a convert. My wife's grandmother is a born catholic but goes to a baptist church and still calls herself catholic. It odd like the difference between national Jew and religious Jew almost. I don't do religion as it follows the organization of a church denomination. I belong to no church I just follow the teaching of Christ.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63894
Dec 7, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I still believe in the bible and God so tease at will.
Nope, nope, too late. Besides, it isn't Christians that I can't stand, it is liars and hypocrites. So far you have failed at being either one of those.

Can't you try a little harder?

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63895
Dec 7, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I still believe in the bible and God so tease at will.
I don't think you will find people here unkind to your beliefs. I can't speak for everyone, but I would not tease you for what you believe.

I save that for those who are petulantly and aggressively, ignorant and try to foist their beliefs onto others as if they were the only true and factual basis for describing the world. At the same time they ridicule others and sling mud on what they believe, accept or support.

As I have said before, I was raised a Christian in a Southern Baptist church. But I have doubts, questions, and my beliefs no longer include a literal view of the Bible, if they every really did. I am a scientist and I accept the facts of evolution as described and explained by the theory of evolution. This does not go against a belief in a supreme being. As to those who do not believe in God or any god, I have found that they are more than likely to be highly intelligent, open minded, and genuinely good people to know. While at the same time I have found a large number of dyed in the wool Christians to be ignorant of many things including their own religion, very intolerant, aggressive, angry and alarmingly hateful. That they do not see the dichotomy of their own actions cast against the background of Christian values remains a further source of confusion for me.

So, if you are really here to learn and speak your mind, I support that and hope I have enough integrity not to malign your for it.

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63896
Dec 7, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Nope, nope, too late. Besides, it isn't Christians that I can't stand, it is liars and hypocrites. So far you have failed at being either one of those.

Can't you try a little harder?
I guess I could try but nobody has respect for a liar.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63897
Dec 7, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, nope, too late. Besides, it isn't Christians that I can't stand, it is liars and hypocrites. So far you have failed at being either one of those.
Can't you try a little harder?
Much better done than my long winded response that follows yours. Tongue in cheek is often the best way to go.

I agree with you about hating liars and hypocrites. Shredding them is a game the whole thread can play.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63898
Dec 7, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You have to be a poe.
I must be too dense to figure it out, but what is poe?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

McMurdo Station

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63899
Dec 7, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Catholics are Christian however you can be a born catholic or a convert. My wife's grandmother is a born catholic but goes to a baptist church and still calls herself catholic. It odd like the difference between national Jew and religious Jew almost. I don't do religion as it follows the organization of a church denomination. I belong to no church I just follow the teaching of Christ.
For years now I have considered the Catholic Church a tool of evil in the world.

If I did believe in the Christian God and such, I would think the CC was guided by Satan

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63900
Dec 7, 2012
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think you will find people here unkind to your beliefs. I can't speak for everyone, but I would not tease you for what you believe.

I save that for those who are petulantly and aggressively, ignorant and try to foist their beliefs onto others as if they were the only true and factual basis for describing the world. At the same time they ridicule others and sling mud on what they believe, accept or support.

As I have said before, I was raised a Christian in a Southern Baptist church. But I have doubts, questions, and my beliefs no longer include a literal view of the Bible, if they every really did. I am a scientist and I accept the facts of evolution as described and explained by the theory of evolution. This does not go against a belief in a supreme being. As to those who do not believe in God or any god, I have found that they are more than likely to be highly intelligent, open minded, and genuinely good people to know. While at the same time I have found a large number of dyed in the wool Christians to be ignorant of many things including their own religion, very intolerant, aggressive, angry and alarmingly hateful. That they do not see the dichotomy of their own actions cast against the background of Christian values remains a further source of confusion for me.

So, if you are really here to learn and speak your mind, I support that and hope I have enough integrity not to malign your for it.
I no longer follow a denomination of religion I was Nazarene. However I found that Jesus doesn't jive with the modern American churches. American churches think bigger is better more more more. Jesus taught different when the crowds would get thick he would say crazy stuff like "sell everything you have and follow me". Jesus was humble and he cared for people I want to be like that.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63901
Dec 7, 2012
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I must be too dense to figure it out, but what is poe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe 's_law

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

McMurdo Station

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63902
Dec 7, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I still believe in the bible and God so tease at will.
Do you believe that the Bible is inerrant and completely true, or will you concede that much of the stories are mythical; such as the Exodus and the Adam and Eve story??

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63903
Dec 7, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Aah yes. That rant of Maz. I was trying to lead her up to the question about whether Archaeopteryx had hollow bones, it did by the way< and she went off on one of her Fruit Loops rants.
Of course she denied Archaeopteryx having hollow bones since according to her it is a dinosaur, and that's all.
Transitional species make for fun debates with creatards. Just let them pick which species that the animal "definitely" is and let the fun begin.
Oh so you want to keep playing with yourself do you?????????? You don't care that you look a fool you want to keep flashing headlines do you??????

"Modern birds—or avian dinosaurs—share a different set of traits, such as hollow bones and rapid growth, than those exhibited by their prehistoric predecessors."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

Some wankers think that because a modern bird was refered to as also being an avian dino, that the above passage is saying that arch had hollow bones like modern birds. It doesn't. It is speaking to the traits that modern bird have that their ancestors/predecessors like arch DID NOT have, you fool.

I say you are the fruit loop. It's not rocket science to understand, you idiot. Your rant is despite my posting another article that also suggests arch has the same growth rate as dinos, NOT birds, also spoken to in the article in question. You suck Subby!

'The unexpected histology of Archaeopteryx and other basalmost birds is actually consistent with retention of the phylogenetically earlier paravian dinosaur condition when size is considered. The first birds were simply feathered dinosaurs with respect to growth and energetic physiology. The evolution of the novel pattern in modern forms occurred later in the group's history.'

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F1...

Arch did not have hollow bones and the above articles both speak to modern birds having a different set of traits to its ancestors that being hollow bones, rapid growth rate, and I can add a reversed hallux and fixed thigh bone, modern bird furcula.

Suck it up Subby you and Kitten were WRONG and obviously cannot engage both reading and comprehension skills at the same time.

I am going to chase you and that other boofhead down seeing as you are prepared to continue a lie and put all your dignity and credibility on the line and f.cuk with me, and not eat your humble pie I am going to never ever ever let you live this one down, until you admit you are a moron.

Wipe the egg off your face Subby!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63904
Dec 7, 2012
 
Maz, I see you ignored the three other links that I provided that show your interpretation of that sentence is wrong. All of them clearly stated that Archaeotperyx had hollow bones.

Go on, look for yourself.

Loon.

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63905
Dec 7, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Do you believe that the Bible is inerrant and completely true, or will you concede that much of the stories are mythical; such as the Exodus and the Adam and Eve story??
This will undoubtedly have you thinking me stupid but I do believe God made man from dirt woman from a rib so on and so on.
I also believe the earth is billions of years old dinosaurs walked the earth. I have read most of the links papers and posts you guys have posted and while I find it interesting it just doesn't paint a complete picture there are holes in it.
I bet you can agree their are holes if their weren't people wouldn't still be studying it. They would say we know all their is to know about this and stop.
As far as exodus being a myth I read a paper today on the subject and the claim to have some writings from the Egyptians about Hebrew servants being buried with high ranking Egyptian officials

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63906
Dec 7, 2012
 
Maz, there is a reason why you cannot claim that any of your articles can ever be claimed to support creationism. And it has to do with the nature of scientific evidence.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63907
Dec 7, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, there is a reason why you cannot claim that any of your articles can ever be claimed to support creationism. And it has to do with the nature of scientific evidence.
Oh I can do better than that. I can claim that idiot evos are handing me creationist evidence on a silver platter then inventing hand waves to sticky tape your theories together.
Are you going to suck eggs or what? Dinosaurs DO NOT have hollow bones you evotard.

Arch is NOT an intermediate because it displays only theropod traits and NO unique modern bird traits and is bolstered by mirepresentation. Your whale evidence is also a fraudulent misrepresentation. Nothing I could present could be worse than the instability and rubbish you have to present.

That is what the data demonstrates and I think that means that your evolutionary research, as sick as this may sound, supports creationism, and your invented scenarios support TOE.

Indeed my 6 points still stand and you have convoluted misrepresentation to support TOE.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63908
Dec 7, 2012
 
These still stand Subby...

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 hubris 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.
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 excuses, hubris, rhetoric and pure speculation.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63909
Dec 7, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey genius, he was not talking about the Gospels, they are only 2,000 years old. But you do have a good point. There are some obvious fairy tales in the gospels too.
Thanks for the overthrust, Subby. I forgot, or never really focused upon the fact, that the gospels are only stories about Jesus. I have been re-reading the old testament, just finishing Jeremiah at the moment. Haven't got back into new testament mode yet.

Yours,

Aunty Cline
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Elkton, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63910
Dec 7, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
These still stand Subby...
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...
Wait... how is a 100% functional genome supported by creationism?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63911
Dec 7, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, I see you ignored the three other links that I provided that show your interpretation of that sentence is wrong. All of them clearly stated that Archaeotperyx had hollow bones.
Go on, look for yourself.
Loon.
Look Subby, it does not matter. Arch cannot be an intermediate because a reversed hallux appears in the fossil record 60my before arch and arch did not have one. It can only be a feathered theropod or dino of some sort.

A reversed hallux is the signature of a modern bird and always has been until these evotards found the footprints and scurried off looking for spaz theropods. That is what is seen in the footprints and everything you lot invent is specualtion because evos simply cannot have modern birds flying around 212mya.

If I want to interpret that data as it stands I have that choice. It is less convoluted than your theories that are based on misrepresentation. You cannot say I have no evidence to support the Genesis account of when birds were created being out of alignment with TOE, because I have. Just because you don't like it, or it is against your speculations and misrepresentations, does not mean I cannot present evidence for my view.

My 6 points stand and they are based on data that you evos have handed me on a silver platter.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63912
Dec 7, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Catholics are Christian however you can be a born catholic or a convert. My wife's grandmother is a born catholic but goes to a baptist church and still calls herself catholic. It odd like the difference between national Jew and religious Jew almost. I don't do religion as it follows the organization of a church denomination. I belong to no church I just follow the teaching of Christ.
Bravo! Many of us sceptics could do as well.

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.

•••