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 (Page 3,432)

Showing posts 68,621 - 68,640 of105,890
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72884
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

EsoTeRiCxx827 wrote:
Thank you for posting this! I was really beginning to think that everyone on here was insane when reading the first few posts from the same people back and forth.

CLEARLY Darwin himself was not a racist and a very compassionate and forward thinking man for his time. As you said, it is not his fault nor the fault of the well intentioned, and well informed scientist's if racists misconstrue evolution to fit their repulsive and foolish agenda.

I would like to hear the argument as to how Creationism is a fact. What do you people mean by junk science? There is so much factual evidence proving the existence of evolution!! Take the fossils for example that have been found approx 2 million to 1.8 million years ago in Africa. Scientist's have found many fossils which prove that humans slowly evolved over millions of years from an ape-like ancestor. Not to mention the similarity in DNA composition.

To the person who denounced the validity of evolution due to a single organism not changing over millions of years...I don't even know how you thought that was relevant. You cannot argue that because organisms exist seemingly unchanged for millions of years that therefore NOTHING else evolves. If you understood the reason for evolution than you wouldn't have even made that argument.

Species evolve to better adapt and survive in their environment.(I.E. A species of birds existed on an island. Some of the birds had longer beaks which allowed them to eat more bugs. These birds were healthier and more well fed, and well adapter due to this genetic difference. Therefore the other birds died out and the longer beaked birds continued to mate and produce more until the species as a whole all had long beaks). If an organism is already perfectly equipped for its environment than why would evolution take place? Perhaps it did on a smaller level? But that has absolutely nothing to do with human evolution. You cannot discount all of the evidence staring you in the face. It is not some conspiracy as you seem to think.

Last, I just want to say that there is no reason you have to forfeit your religious beliefs due to scientific proof of evolution. The Bible is a collection of stories, plain and simple. Some based in truth, others as descriptive and imaginative stories. This is purely my opinion, but throughout time many people have altered the bible and completely removed entire sections of it dealing with Jesus's wife ( Mary Magdalene) and his mother ( Mary) because it was assumed this would make Jesus look weak and too human like if it was known that he traveled and spread the word of God with them. Mary Magdalene was referred to as a PROSTITUTE until the 1960's or 70's! I mean come on, you can't take everything written there LITERALLY. You can still believe that there is a higher power, but also believe that organisms and life on earth evolved through scientific process.
"CLEARLY Darwin himself was not a racist"

LOL. Really? LOL

"Racism and Darwinism

The greatest influence in the sudden development of racism in the 19th century Europe was the replacement of the Christian belief that "God created all people equal" by "Darwinism". By suggesting that man had evolved from more primitive creatures, and that some races had evolved further than others, it provided racism with a scientific mask.

In short, Darwin is the father of racism. His theory was taken up and commented on by such 'official' founders of racism as Arthur Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and the racist ideology which emerged was then put into practice by the Nazis and other fascists. James Joll, who spent long years as a professor of history at universities such as Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard, explained the relationship between Darwinism and racism in his book Europe Since 1870, which is still taught as a textbook in universities:"
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72885
Jan 28, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
The laws of the atom are different from what Einstein predicts, UA astronomer Don McCarthy said. Einstein’s theory does well in explaining the universe as a whole, but it doesn’t do well at the smallest scale of an atom
Nice cut and paste job. Without citation I might add. I think I've also mentioned cosmologists looking for a unified theory of gravity for some time now.

“happy to be horny”

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72886
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>The U.N. drew up the new border lines for Europe and the Middle East after the war. If you don't like it, take it up with them.
judiasm...the religion of no personal responsibility!!!!!!!!!!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72887
Jan 28, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that would be GOD.
My religious opinions are just as valid as yours.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72888
Jan 28, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You apparently are willing to take anything as proof, no wonder you're so screwed up.
Yup.

That was another one. Just wait 'till I send you the bill.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72889
Jan 28, 2013
 
EsoTeRiCxx827 wrote:
Thank you for posting this! I was really beginning to think that everyone on here was insane when reading the first few posts from the same people back and forth.

CLEARLY Darwin himself was not a racist and a very compassionate and forward thinking man for his time. As you said, it is not his fault nor the fault of the well intentioned, and well informed scientist's if racists misconstrue evolution to fit their repulsive and foolish agenda.

I would like to hear the argument as to how Creationism is a fact. What do you people mean by junk science? There is so much factual evidence proving the existence of evolution!! Take the fossils for example that have been found approx 2 million to 1.8 million years ago in Africa. Scientist's have found many fossils which prove that humans slowly evolved over millions of years from an ape-like ancestor. Not to mention the similarity in DNA composition.

To the person who denounced the validity of evolution due to a single organism not changing over millions of years...I don't even know how you thought that was relevant. You cannot argue that because organisms exist seemingly unchanged for millions of years that therefore NOTHING else evolves. If you understood the reason for evolution than you wouldn't have even made that argument.

Species evolve to better adapt and survive in their environment.(I.E. A species of birds existed on an island. Some of the birds had longer beaks which allowed them to eat more bugs. These birds were healthier and more well fed, and well adapter due to this genetic difference. Therefore the other birds died out and the longer beaked birds continued to mate and produce more until the species as a whole all had long beaks). If an organism is already perfectly equipped for its environment than why would evolution take place? Perhaps it did on a smaller level? But that has absolutely nothing to do with human evolution. You cannot discount all of the evidence staring you in the face. It is not some conspiracy as you seem to think.

Last, I just want to say that there is no reason you have to forfeit your religious beliefs due to scientific proof of evolution. The Bible is a collection of stories, plain and simple. Some based in truth, others as descriptive and imaginative stories. This is purely my opinion, but throughout time many people have altered the bible and completely removed entire sections of it dealing with Jesus's wife ( Mary Magdalene) and his mother ( Mary) because it was assumed this would make Jesus look weak and too human like if it was known that he traveled and spread the word of God with them. Mary Magdalene was referred to as a PROSTITUTE until the 1960's or 70's! I mean come on, you can't take everything written there LITERALLY. You can still believe that there is a higher power, but also believe that organisms and life on earth evolved through scientific process.
"I would like to hear the argument as to how Creationism is a fact."

It not! It is a faith not a fact. You have much to learn.
bohart

Morristown, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72890
Jan 28, 2013
 
lisawow wrote:
<quoted text>Have you ever considered "dude-anetics" and living on a boat for a few years to avoid taxes?? Where are the future Travoltas and Cruises going to turn to without your help???????
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha.

“happy to be horny”

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72891
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"CLEARLY Darwin himself was not a racist"
LOL. Really? LOL
"Racism and Darwinism
The greatest influence in the sudden development of racism in the 19th century Europe was the replacement of the Christian belief that "God created all people equal" by "Darwinism". By suggesting that man had evolved from more primitive creatures, and that some races had evolved further than others, it provided racism with a scientific mask.
In short, Darwin is the father of racism. His theory was taken up and commented on by such 'official' founders of racism as Arthur Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and the racist ideology which emerged was then put into practice by the Nazis and other fascists. James Joll, who spent long years as a professor of history at universities such as Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard, explained the relationship between Darwinism and racism in his book Europe Since 1870, which is still taught as a textbook in universities:"
Really, so catholics elect female bishops, priests and popes and you are all cuddly and cute religous buddies in getting behind gay marriage because god created all men equal??There's no pro slavery passages in the bible and women are always seen as equal in the eyes of god in the bible??????????Christianity... the religion of no personal responsibility!!!!!!!!!!There is a point in every persons life when they have to grow up, the problem with judo-christianic belief is that you never, ever do..........
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72892
Jan 28, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
"CLEARLY Darwin himself was not a racist"
LOL. Really? LOL
"Racism and Darwinism
The greatest influence in the sudden development of racism in the 19th century Europe was the replacement of the Christian belief that "God created all people equal"
Except he didn't. God created two "perfect" human beings called Adam and Eve (not even mentioning the ones of the savage plains who the fundies can't decide if they were created separately or offspring of Adam and Eve). After which came TEH FALL! Whereby all humans born thereafter became less "perfect" with each subsequent generation. It may also be worth noting that the vast majority of depictions of Adam and Eve just so happen to be white Europeans. However it makes little difference which race is put on top, the end result is a claim that is PROFOUNDLY racist.
Langoliers wrote:
by "Darwinism". By suggesting that man had evolved from more primitive creatures, and that some races had evolved further than others, it provided racism with a scientific mask.
While evolution HAS been incorrectly misused in the past to justify racial bigotry, the fact of the matter is that this has no bearing on the scientific validity of the current theory of evolution, also known as the modern evolutionary synthesis. And that states that there is no such thing as "more evolved", since ALL life is posited to have come from a common ancestry. Meaning that ALL species that exist today have the EXACT SAME amount of time to evolve. Therefore not one is any more advanced than another, according to evolutionary theory.

Creationists often object to this as they aren't fond of the idea of all life being on a level playing field.
Langoliers wrote:
In short, Darwin is the father of racism.
Gee, because racism never existed before Darwin's day, right?

Oh wait - it existed for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
Langoliers wrote:
His theory was taken up and commented on by such 'official' founders of racism as Arthur Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and the racist ideology which emerged was then put into practice by the Nazis and other fascists. James Joll, who spent long years as a professor of history at universities such as Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard, explained the relationship between Darwinism and racism in his book Europe Since 1870, which is still taught as a textbook in universities:"
First, Nazi ideology wasn't based on the theory of evolution, as evolution espouses NATURAL selection, which kinda flies right in the face of eugenics (ARTIFICIAL selection).

Also bear in mind that while Wilberforce and like-minded individuals were calling for the abolition of slavery, people used the Bible as justification, due the the Bible's support of such practices in no uncertain terms.

And as for Darwin himself, he was a product of his time. And while by no means perfect was certainly a little more enlightened than many others of his day. As shown on page ONE. Of THIS thread:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Sorry fundies, but science can't be debunked by ad-hom rhetoric.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72893
Jan 28, 2013
 
EsoTeRiCxx827 wrote:
Thank you for posting this! s.
"Mary Magdalene was referred to as a PROSTITUTE"

Nope sorry. There are many Mary's in the Bible you have them confused. Funny confusion coming out of that brain!

Wikipedia:

"This article is about a biblical figure.

Penitent Mary Magdalene by Nicolas Régnier, Palace on the Water, Warsaw
Disciple
Born Date unknown
Place unknown
Died Date unknown
Place: possibly Saint-Maximin-la-Sainte-Baume, Ephesus, Asia Minor [1]
Honored in Eastern Orthodoxy
Roman Catholic Church
Anglican Communion
Lutheranism
other Protestant churches
Bahá'í Faith
Feast July 22

Mary Magdalene (original Greek Μαρία2] or Mary of Magdala and sometimes The Magdalene, was one of Jesus' most celebrated disciples, and the most important female disciple in the movement of Jesus.[3] Jesus cleansed her of "seven demons",[Lu 8:2][Mk 16:9] sometimes interpreted as referring to complex illnesses.[4] She became Jesus' close friend. She was most prominent during his last days. When Jesus was crucified by the Romans, Mary Magdalene was there supporting him in his final terrifying moments and mourning his death.[5] She stayed with him at the cross after the male disciples (excepting John the Beloved) had fled. She was at his burial. In all four New Testament Gospels, Mary Magdalene is the first (either alone or with a group of women) to arrive at Jesus' tomb, where she encounters an angel (or a pair of angels) who instructs her to go tell the disciples that Jesus has risen.[6][7]She was the first person to see Jesus after his Resurrection,[3] according to both John 20 and Mark 16:9. She was there at the "beginning of a movement that was going to transform the West".[5] Because of her pivotal role in the Resurrection, she became known as "the apostle to the apostles".[6]

Few characters in the New Testament have been so sorely miscast as Mary Magdalene. From the sixth century until fairly late in the twentieth century, she has been portrayed as a prostitute. No where in the New Testament is she described in any but the most positive terms. Her reputation as a fallen woman originated not in the Bible but in a sixth-century sermon by Pope Gregory the Great.[6]

Mary Magdalene is considered by the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran churches to be a saint, with a feast day of July 22. The Eastern Orthodox churches also commemorate her on the Sunday of the Myrrhbearers, the Orthodox equivalent of the Western Three Mary's."
bohart

Morristown, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72894
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Except he didn't. God created two "perfect" human beings called Adam and Eve (not even mentioning the ones of the savage plains who the fundies can't decide if they were created separately or offspring of Adam and Eve). After which came TEH FALL! Whereby all humans born thereafter became less "perfect" with each subsequent generation. It may also be worth noting that the vast majority of depictions of Adam and Eve just so happen to be white Europeans. However it makes little difference which race is put on top, the end result is a claim that is PROFOUNDLY racist.
<quoted text>
While evolution HAS been incorrectly misused in the past to justify racial bigotry, the fact of the matter is that this has no bearing on the scientific validity of the current theory of evolution, also known as the modern evolutionary synthesis. And that states that there is no such thing as "more evolved", since ALL life is posited to have come from a common ancestry. Meaning that ALL species that exist today have the EXACT SAME amount of time to evolve. Therefore not one is any more advanced than another, according to evolutionary theory.
Creationists often object to this as they aren't fond of the idea of all life being on a level playing field.
<quoted text>
Gee, because racism never existed before Darwin's day, right?
Oh wait - it existed for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
<quoted text>
First, Nazi ideology wasn't based on the theory of evolution, as evolution espouses NATURAL selection, which kinda flies right in the face of eugenics (ARTIFICIAL selection).
Also bear in mind that while Wilberforce and like-minded individuals were calling for the abolition of slavery, people used the Bible as justification, due the the Bible's support of such practices in no uncertain terms.
And as for Darwin himself, he was a product of his time. And while by no means perfect was certainly a little more enlightened than many others of his day. As shown on page ONE. Of THIS thread:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Sorry fundies, but science can't be debunked by ad-hom rhetoric.
Therefore not one race is more advanced than another? Nazi ideology isn't based on evolution?

Dude! get back to your keyboard , theres a mad syphilis infected monkey banking away..

..on second thought forget it, he's an improvement.
bohart

Morristown, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72895
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lisawow wrote:
<quoted text>Really, so catholics elect female bishops, priests and popes and you are all cuddly and cute religous buddies in getting behind gay marriage because god created all men equal??There's no pro slavery passages in the bible and women are always seen as equal in the eyes of god in the bible??????????Christianity... the religion of no personal responsibility!!!!!!!!!!There is a point in every persons life when they have to grow up, the problem with judo-christianic belief is that you never, ever do..........
Hey sorry, but being members of the he-man woman haters club, me, Spanky, Alfalfa, and Buckwheat have to keep our bitches in line.As far as gay marriage goes I don't give a rats ass what they do, but don't stick that stink weed under my nose and say gee, doesn't this smell like roses?, and then whine,(like bitches) when I say it smells like sh#t.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72896
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, there's evidence of a King of the House of David. That doesn't necessarily mean your David definitely existed.

And it certainly isn't evidence of invisible Jewmagic, any more than the existence of London proves Sherlock Holmes solved the curious case of the Hound of the Baskervilles.
"Yeah, there's evidence of a King of the House of David. That doesn't necessarily mean your David definitely existed."

Getting desperate?
It definitely does mean King David existed. Them's the Facts.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72897
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Doesn't matter. The Egyptians still got you beat.
My post:

Historicity of numerous kings mentioned in the Bible

Only fifty years ago many disbelieving scholars totally rejected the historical accuracy of the Bible because they claimed that the Scriptures talked about numerous kings and individuals that could not be confirmed from any other historical or archeological records. Recent discoveries have proven these critics wrong. Discoveries have been found referring to King David, Solomon, Uzziah, Hezekiah and many others.

Recent archeological investigations have demolished the position of those who rejected the biblical account of Israel's kings such as King David. In 1993, archeologists digging at Tel Dan in the Galilee in northern Israel found a fragment of a stone inscription that clearly refers to the "house of David" and identifies David as the "king of Israel." This is the first inscription outside the Bible that confirms the Bible's statement that David was the king of Israel in the ninth century before Christ.

A stone inscription from Egypt confirms that Israel was established as a nation in Canaan centuries before the reign of King David, just as the Bible claims. The Merneptah Stela is a seven-and-a-half-foot-high stone inscription discovered in the temple of Pharaoh Merneptah at Thebes in Egypt. Scholars determined that Pharaoh Merneptah ruled Egypt from 1213 to 1203 B.C. and confirmed that he launched an invasion into the area of the modern-day West Bank in Canaan, defeating the Jewish inhabitants of the land. The second line from the bottom of this inscriptions boasts, "Israel is laid waste; his seed is not."

Now what's your point? That the Egyptians invaded Canaan and defeated the House of David?

It's only been written in the Bible for over 1600 years. It's called validation of the Bible in case your interested.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72898
Jan 28, 2013
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Therefore not one race is more advanced than another? Nazi ideology isn't based on evolution?
No, it isn't. It's based on racial superiority. Which they tried to engineer via the application of eugenics (also kinda daft when you think about it). It's possible that some Nazi's THOUGHT they were basing it on evolution, but like every good fundie they misunderstood the concept. Kinda like if they used steamrollers to run people over. We can't blame the steamrollers for the Nazi's using 'em wrong.
bohart wrote:
Dude! get back to your keyboard , theres a mad syphilis infected monkey banking away..
..on second thought forget it, he's an improvement.
Your sense of humour is improving.

Okay, so I was just trying to make you feel better.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72899
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"Yeah, there's evidence of a King of the House of David. That doesn't necessarily mean your David definitely existed."
Getting desperate?
It definitely does mean King David existed. Them's the Facts.
Desperate? Not really. You're the one trying to claim a couple of people and some buildings prove invisible Jewmagic.

Oh, and continually ignoring anything you find theologically inconvenient.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72900
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"CLEARLY Darwin himself was not a racist"
LOL. Really? LOL
"Racism and Darwinism
The greatest influence in the sudden development of racism in the 19th century Europe was the replacement of the Christian belief that "God created all people equal" by "Darwinism". By suggesting that man had evolved from more primitive creatures, and that some races had evolved further than others, it provided racism with a scientific mask.
In short, Darwin is the father of racism. His theory was taken up and commented on by such 'official' founders of racism as Arthur Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and the racist ideology which emerged was then put into practice by the Nazis and other fascists. James Joll, who spent long years as a professor of history at universities such as Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard, explained the relationship between Darwinism and racism in his book Europe Since 1870, which is still taught as a textbook in universities:"
Still spouting nonsense, I see.

For example:

Racism long predated Darwin. Therefore, he can not be its father.

Hitler had Darwin's books banned and burned.

But don't let facts get in your way. Why ruin a good rant, eh?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72901
Jan 28, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>You kidding? You fundies cost me a fortune in irony meters.
I figured.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72902
Jan 28, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
It is a faith not a fact.
Agreed.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72903
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lisawow wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think anyone would deny that there is some historical basis to the bible, after all most good stories are based on or set in a historical context, even in the present tense, however that does not make all of the bible true anymore than a pressrelaease from the Iraq foreign minister tomorrow might be based on the events of today yet still be full of political bias. The bible is not a "neutral" historical document, it is a statement of faith, about as reliable as a Rush Limbaugh quote taken without very serious context explanations, the question of "god" is not answered by simply stating that someone said it is so.........it's that simple, and indeed, that complicated.
"Many people do not believe that the Bible is a reliable document of history. But, the fact is the Bible is very trustworthy as a historical document. If we were to look at a chart that compared the biblical documents with other ancient documents, we would see that the Bible is in a class by itself regarding the number of ancient copies and their reliability. Please consider the chart below."

"It should be obvious that the biblical documents, especially the New Testament documents, are superior in their quantity, time span from original occurrence, and textual reliability. People still question if the documents are reliably transmitted to us; but they should rather ask if the biblical documents record actual historical accounts.

The Bible is a book of History

It could be said that the Bible is a book of history -- and it is. The Bible describes places, people, and events in various degrees of detail. It is essentially an historical account of the people of God throughout thousands of years. If you open to almost any page in the Bible you will find a name of a place and/or a person. Much of this can be verified from archaeology. Though archaeology cannot prove that the Bible is the inspired word of God, it has the ability to prove whether or not some events and locations described therein are true or false. So far, however, there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way."

http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-hi...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 68,621 - 68,640 of105,890
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••